Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 13 April 2005

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

1. Archive 1: bit-by-bit changes
2. Archive 2: Michael estranged? Greer's affiliations
3. Archive 3: POV, Michael as cause?, external links
4. Archive 4: Baden's assessment, Euthanasia vs Right-to-die, POV, George Greer, why remove tube, Catholic-influenced decision?, condition wording, open adultery statute, $10M offer, feeling pain, potential abuse, first names, external link quality
5. Archive 5: NCDave conduct, link cleanup, biography request, S686 text, Sun Hudson, Ms./Mrs.
6. Archive 6: court decisions, legal implications, family members' character, wording of condition, pundits, S686 vote, Iraq, Sun Hudson
7. Archive 7: Ms. or Mrs., photo usage, initial collapse, insurance, feeding tube, pronunciation, legal costs
8. Archive 8: cause of collapse, Larry King transcript, Hammesfahr's credentials, Michael's role, nurse's affidavit, the Vatican, page protection
9. Archive 9: photo inclusion, alleged GOP memo, mentioning the money, bulimia as cause, pro-life/anti-abortion, role of the church
10. Archive 10: feeling pain, cleanup of additions, proposed addition of Lieberman analysis and vocalizations
11. Archive 11: poll on terminology ("pro-life" or other), including public opinion, wording on Mr. Schiavo's role, overlinking
12. Archive 12: sources for external links, date correction, "Culture of Life"/"Culture of Death", ABC poll, CAT Scans
13. Archive 13: authority to report condition, NPOV tag, pain speculation in lead?, Catholic category, edit warring, Reuters cite, brain scan, nurse Iyer affidavit
14. Archive 14: disability rights, Ms./Mrs. again, Hammesfahr update, POV issues, Michael an RN, poll on stating pain status
15. Archive 15: summarizing televised statements, LA Times, cremation?, weight, Mr. Schiavo's girlfriend, "life support", Dr. Maxfield, 1994 hospice care, parents sent out before death?, who is "family", relevance of early life, fork article?
16. Archive 16: still "current event"?, family in room, lead section, pronunciation, Last Rites, NYT, list of neurologists, TOC, copyediting, talk archiving and refactoring, "recent developments", affidavits
17. Archive 17: "fact"/"alleged"/"disputed"/"claimed", Martinez talking points memo, HTML entities, Dr. Cranford, Zogby poll
18. Archive 18: Mr. Schiavo living will?, GAL question, NPOV tag, article refactor, medical lodgings, wikithanks, cause of death, other articles

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette

• Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).

Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page. This article is controversial and somewhat high traffic. Mis/overuse of the talk page makes it difficult for this page to serve its intended purpose.
Fox1 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And remember, when making assertions concerning Mrs. Schiavo herself and her condition. You (almost certainly) do (did) not know her personally, and you (almost certainly) have not examined her in person, and you (very likely -- tell us if it's otherwise :-) are not a physician. So you are working on second-hand, third-hand, or worse reportage. Temper your assertions accordingly.
  

--Baylink 19:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Natural Means

Judge Greer denies a motion to provide food and water to Terri by "natural means" here: http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/030805orderdenyfood.pdf

Unfortunately, it references another motion, which I don't have a URL for.

The order to deny food and water by natural means: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf StuartGathman 14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone added it to the intro saying Greer prohibited foor and water by natural means. I tweaked it to say he denied a motion for food and water by natural means. but I would like to add the explanation. Unfortunately, Greer references some other motion which I don't have a URL for and he also says "Both require an experimental procedure". Does anyone have plain language explanation of why the motion was denied? It sounds like it is a duplicate of another motion, and the otehr motion was denied for some reason. FuelWagon 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether Terri was capable of swallowing on her own. Maybe that is why it would be an experimental procedure to feed her water orally? Just a guess. Kingturtle 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Tropix is biased towards the Shindler's point of view. The original text that Tropix put in the intro was that Judge Greer denied food and water by natural means, which could be interpreted by readers to mean, they could feed her orally, but he wouldn't let them. I'm also not sure if the ruling that she wouldn't wanted to have been kept alive in this kind of state overrules whether or not feeding her "naturally" or not really mattered. If Terri was PVS, then is somehow forcing food down her throat while she is totally reflexive and non-aware, is that substituting an esophogus for a plastic tube and its still life support, just without the surgery? As far as I know, Tropix hasn't read anything on this page, but I think Tropix is the one who ought to find a URL to the second motion that Greer references. FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon, why can't you leave it to the reader to judge the judge? The POV you advocate is the certainty that Greer's ruling reflected Terri's wishes to suffer 13 days of dehyration and starvation in order to die. While the court order exists, the certainty that is was her wish does not exist. This is the major POV problem with the entire article - unjustified certainty of claims made by Michael Schiavo. This is always butressed by the identifying food and water with life support which remains politically contentious and presented in the article as if it were not so.

Re: Judge the Judge. Facts are facts and judgements are judgements. Facts belong in wikipedia. The wording of Greer denying food and water left out facts to allow the reader broader range of judgements. Fill in all the facts, and fewer judgements are possible. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as to "the certainty that it was her wish does not exist", you cannot state that by itself and be NPOV. The entire body of facts around what she wanted, need be presented together in one location so that claims and assertions and accusations can be held in proper context to the facts. The primary fact is that the courts ruled that Terri would not want to be kept on life support. Then claims that Terri said this and Terri said that have some context to live in. But those claims can only be asserted by the main parties involved, Michael or the parents. Assertions are not the place to allow the writer to say "yeah, but this is really what happened". After the fact of the court ruling, the primary assertions of both sides has next precedence in "weight". The whole point of a courtroom is that you get fairness, cross examination, objective interrogation, and a respect to the rule of law. Far less "weight" then is given to third parties not directly involved. Iyer's affadavit cannot be quoted out of context without mentioning the facts that fail to align with her assertions and the fact that Greer ruled it "incredible to say the least". The point is to let the reader judge Iyer's statements, but in context of all the other information, not in a vacuum. NCdave, for example, said Pearson asserted there was a causal link between malpractice money and Michael's change of attitude. But that wasn't fact. It was HIS representation and interpretation of what Pearson said. Pearson never said anything about there being a link from one to the other. He said there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest. The reader must be able to judge the facts, not judge the judgements of the wikipedian author. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Who's "Pearson?" NCdave 06:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it matters according to your point of view, the order itself to "cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the Ward, THERESA SCHIAVO at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." does not permit any attempt to naturally feed Terri. (i.e. to introduce food and water through the mouth.) The background Tropix cites is that Terri was not given a swallow test or any therapy to rehabilitate her ability to eat and drink through the mouth at the insistance of Michael Schiavo. Once that was established by the order of the court, Greer using the principle that he had ruled on it earlier to now deny any natural food or water to be given to her after March 18 2005. The order denying the motion as you requested. patsw 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Will look at it later today. No time right now. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read it. Wasn't what I was looking for. Greer mentions some other thing and says "if that is upheld, this motion isn't needed. If that is rejected, then the courts should use this to do indirectly what it would not allow directly" I cannot find the "it" that he is talking about. FuelWagon 22:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the legalease going on in this motion being rejected? Greer references some other document or some other motion or something, and I don't know how to trace back to the original from his cryptographic text. I want to know what legal basis was to reject the motion, leaving it as "just rejected" leaves too many interpretations open. need more facts. FuelWagon 23:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

can you be more specific as to which motions/orders you need "translated" (date)? there were an incredible no. of post-trial motions and related orders...if you give me reference points, then i might could take a stab at "translating" the "legalese" (really, it's not cryptic) i don't think that this particular county has an online docket, which would list all the motions in chronological order (go to the county clerk's website). however, abstractappeal.com has a number of the motions, findlaw has a few, and one of the univ websites (UM?) had a fairly comprehensive list with links. (also, see the life support v. nutrition and hydration discussion above for a small, minor "translation" of one motion)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was the link patsw provided: To quote the mumbo jumbo in question:

"it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents Fla R. Civ. P rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used fr both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure."

I have no clue what he's talking about. FuelWagon 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greer was apparently referring to the provision of food and water by natural means as an "experimental procedure" because it had not been resolved whether or not Terri's swallowing capabilities were sufficient to enable her to be sustained by food and water provided by natural means. But the reason that question had not been resolved was that Judge Greer, himself, forbade the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that would have resolved it. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can read the motion for feeding by natural means (which the judge denied):.

The motion (which I paraphrase) claimed :

• that Terri could swallow saliva and water from toothbrushing,

• that natural ingestion of food and water would not violate the court order to remove "artificial life support" (this is what the court ruled she did not want, based on the hearsay comments attributed to her),

• that denying natural ingestion would make the court's orders penal instead of executory,

• if granted, then either Terri would eat and survive, or not.

The judge denied this motion. If "natural means" are not life support under Florida law, does this leave Terri's death either euthanasia or assisted suicide? Are either legal in Florida?

Tropix 03:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

No, neither are legal in Florida. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So that answers the second question. That just leaves the first question for someone to answer. Tropix 06:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

(1) It would be more appropriate to write that the judge denied the "Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission To Provide Terri Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the Assisted Nutrition and Hydration Are Discontinued" on the grounds that this motion was identical to the already filed Respondents' 1.540(b)(5) Motion. That is, Respondents submitted to the court motions that were different in name only--there were no distinctions in the substance of the motions. Therefore, it is appropriate to deny the one motion because it is duplicative/repetitive/redundant. But please see my comment (3) below, that it is not appropriate to be parsing these motions and accompanying orders out of the broader context of the judicial proceedings.

(2) A Rule 1.540 Motion is a Motion seeking relief from judgment, decrees, or orders. This particular motion was apparently arguing 1.540(b)(5), that the judgment/decrees/orders should be vacated (i.e., voided) because that "judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application." Frankly, it cannot be analyzed (will stay "mumbo jumbo") without the actual motion or the accompanying memorandum of law to explain why they advocate this legal argument.

(3) This is arguing minutiae and is bordering on the nonsensical. One point of view is parsing--quoting out of context--from a series, and an exceptionally long series, of motions and corresponding orders, in order to make a political statement. Which is great for advocacy, but not for neutrality. For a writing comprehension standpoint, it is probably best tackled by analyzing the post-trial activity; in this instance, grouping the motions together and explaining them as post-trial motions filed by the parties, on what grounds, and the reasons for denying/granting, etc. --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle, wow, thanks. I think I understand it a little better. So, I'm still wondering about the neutrality of the current article's mention of Greer denying food and water by natural means, because I'm trying to figure out in what context it was denied. From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct? I'm not sure if I understand if you found the original motion somewhere (URL?) and/or Greer's reason for rejecting it. Did you find the other motion he mentioned? If the motion cannot be put in context (i.e. if the other motion and the reason for its denial cannot be included), I'm a little wary of leaving mention of this motion being denied, since it comes with implications that Terri could eat food and water on her own, and Greer simply denied it. Since I think you have a much better grasp on this than I do, do you have any suggestions for achieving NPOV when the article mentions this motion being denied? FuelWagon 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uh, okay, give me a few days to look this over and get back to you. (In the meantime, if you really want to understand the legal bits, i highly, highly recommend abstractappeal.com--the home page, not just the Schiavo page. You have to scroll down to get to the late March-early April entries concerning the Schiavo case, but it's worth it. The writer strikes me as one sharp attorney and a very good writer, with an aptitude for translating the legalese. Some entries you might want to look at are April 9 (hearsay), and then in late March/early April there are entries on the Iyers affidavit, more on hearsay, living wills, and so on; he also posted when motions were filed (with links) and orders issued (with links) and some explanation. If you are writing any of the aspects of the legal case, his explanations might clear up some of your confusion as to how or why something happened.)Mia-Cle 20:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon says: From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct?

You're getting there now, and you're at about the same place I am. (: I do not know precisely which motion the order is referring to when it says that the material in the new motion is already a part of a previous motion. It does seem clear that the previous motion had not yet been ruled on at the time the subsequent motion was denied, since the order explains what the result would be if the original motion was eventually denied and what the result would be if it was accepted (probably not the proper term, but, oh well). My suggestion would be to e-mail Matt Conigliaro at abstractappeal.com and ask him if he can clarify which motion the denial we're talking about was referring to. He's really helpful and can usually point one in the right direction re documents.--Minaflorida 20:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My best guess, which is at least somewhere to start, is that this is the earlier motion that the later denial of motion refers to: document here

The denial order (the one dated March 8) mentions that the content of the motion is part and parcel of the previous "motion on medical evaluations." I believe the court is talking about the motion where the Schindlers asked for new tests. That motion was itself denied on March 9: document here That would be consistent with the language in the March 8 denial, as it refers to the previous motion as if it had not yet been ruled on.--Minaflorida 20:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I think this is in refernce to the other motion that the Schindlers filed. Greer mentions that the schindlers want more testing using an fMRI and that one of their own doctors in the affadavits says fMRI is EXPERIMENTAL, which is what he mentioned in the other denial. I'll put it in the feeding tube section FuelWagon 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Miniflorida and Mia-Cle. I updated the "life support - feeding tube" section with the full context based on these two links and your explanations. lemme know what you think. FuelWagon 21:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle, I just re-read you comments above. I get what you mean by arguing the minutia. I guess the reason I wanted to put it in the article is so that it puts into context what conspiracy-theory websites are reporting as "Greer denies food and water by natural means." I guess I figure if it's in wikipedia, but put into proper context, then hopefully some of the people will get the truth, and the conspiracy nuts can't say "There must be some truth to it because they don't even mention it in Misplaced Pages". Including it makes the claim that "it's being hidden because there's some awful truth underneath" fail to hold water. Then again, if you try to rebuke every conspiracy theory around this, the one article could take an entire encyclopedia. But then, if I take it out, someone will have to go through this same investigation to either put it into full context, or argue to take it out because it's out of context. I don't know. I'm getting burned out to some degree here. FuelWagon 01:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i understand completely and you have my sympathy-- my apologies for not responding in more detail at this point (i haven't had the time to read the entire article, actually), but i will later. (there is always hope that with time, and after all the books come out and the made for tv movies/docudramas air, then you and others will be able to edit this article with the kind of balance you are trying to achieve). kudos for all your hard work. --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Tropix, via my user talk page:

Here is my concern: The second motion does not contain any reference to experimental procedures. Maybe something was attached to the motion, I don't know, but the body of the motion is only about feeding by mouth, no tests. I suggest you might delete the statement "It contained the same requests for fMRI scans, the same request for VitalStim swallowing therapy, and the same affadavits." if that statement is wrong. I agree that the judge in his denial order refers to both motions as requesting experimental procedures, but this appears to be an error on his part. Perhaps the first one did, but not the second.

You may wish also wish to read the 2000 order, page 10, where Judge Greer orders the discontinuance of Micheal's artificial life support. I assume that even a judge can make minor errors from time to time.

Tropix 05:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I noted your change this morning, and thank you for removing that sentence. Since you added the judge's wording (in which he apparently spoke in error) it would neutralize the remaining inaccuracy to add a comment that the second motion did not, in fact, request experimental procedures. Otherwise, the reader is given the direct but wrong impression that it did, when we know it didn't. Tropix 15:13, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FuelWagon"

Tropix, if you can find the original motions and show that one doesn't mention fMRI, then put it in. If you can show a court document from the Schindlers or something from their lawyer were they object to this comment, then link to that and put it in. But unless you have something that solid to show Greer made a provable mistake, and the Schindlers or someone else neutral didn't dispute it, then you can't just say Greer's decision is wrong, when the Shindlers never disputed it or something. if an appeal court or something looked at everything and said, "yeah, Greer should have treated these as two separate motions" then go for it. Otherwise, we're "in the minutia" as Mia-Cle said. If Greer MISPOKE but his decision to deny would still stand, what is the point, reallY? If an appeal court or something woudl say his decision was valid, then who are you trying to hang by bringing this up? If the Schindlers or their lawyer said something about Greer's wording or decision, then put that in as a direct dispute. But the opinion of some armchair lawyer on a third-party blog and a demonstrated bias should probably stay out. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I don't mind putting in any valid disputes, but I don't want this to be a way for some "Culture of Death" comment from some outside website to be snuck into the article. There is a fundamental difference. It really comes down to the source of who is disputing the decision. If the Schindlers didn't try to show Greer was wrong or had misread the motions, then why bring in some third party with a political agenda? do you get where I'm coming from? FuelWagon 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Section, Short or Long?

User Tropix has inserted a lot of stuff into the "intro" that is a lot of detail. Unfortunately, now the intro contains serious out-of-order problems, and brings up some hot-button issues without explaining them in detail or in complete context. Does[REDACTED] or the contributers here have any general sense of whether the intro should be a short summary of Terris life, or whether it should just info-dump as much as possible? FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that Tropix is very likely a Sock Puppet for an experienced[REDACTED] user. (I learn something new every day. For one, knuckleheads are usually the ones with way too much time on their hands.) I'm thinking everything inserted by Tropix should be dumped. Cause the more I look at Tropix's edits, the more work I see trying to bring them back to a neutral point of view. There was a blatant POV about Pearson saying Michael had a conflict of interest, but Tropix conveniently never mentioned that Pearson said the exact same thing about the Schindlers. I tried to fix it in the article, but every fix makes the intro that much longer. FuelWagon 11:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone just cut the intro down to 1 paragraph and put the rest of the intro into a section called "timeline". I don't mind that, but I'm noticing that information is getting stated in multiple places. The structure of the entire article appears to need rework. Perhaps the whole article could use some benefit in being put into some sort of rough chronological order. There is just so much stuff that has no context around it. I'm feeling a bit burned out and overwhelmed. Maybe we could pull out the legislative stuff and put it into its own section? I dunno. FuelWagon 12:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this below, in Tropix the Sockpuppet.

Meanwhile, this is the recent version of the intro (slightly improved) that was there before FuelWagon removed it (after making it longer, but before complaining it was too long). I don't say it is perfect. I do say it is preferable to what is there now. Some discussion would be useful. Tropix 03:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage caused by a cardiac arrest. Apparently it was caused by a potassium deficiency in her blood. In turn, this may have been due to bulimia.

In 1992, she was awarded $1 millon in malpractice settlements and awards, to be used for her treatment, and her husband Michael Schiavo was awarded $300,000 for loss of consortium. Until 1994 she received experimental treatment, neurological testing and therapy.

In May of 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Court for authority to remove her feeding tube. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, Pearse, who produced a report concluding that Terri Schiavo was in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), but that Michael had a financial conflict of interest since he would be the sole inheritor of her money. Pearse also stated that the Schindlers had stated that their hope was that they would be granted guardianship, Michael would divorce their daughter and they would become Terri's "heirs at law". Pearson noted "neither side is exempt from ... possible conflicts of interest." A trial was held.

On February 11, 2000 Circuit Court Judge George Greer ordered that Micheal Schaivo could discontinue Terri's life support. The Judge based this order on his findings that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that before her illness she had made statements such as that she would not want to be kept alive "on a machine". This decision was upheld upon appeal by 19 separate judges.

On March 18, 2005 her gastric feeding tube was removed on the order of Judge Greer. The Judge denied a motion to provide food and water by natural means. Terri Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31 at around 9:05 a.m. EST (13:05 UTC), after 13 days without the feeding tube or water. An autopsy has been performed, but the results have not yet been released.

Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contended that he carried out his wife's wishes not to keep her alive on life support. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her brother and sister, disputed Mr. Schiavo's contention that she would not have wished to be kept alive and claim that Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents vigorously appealed the judicial decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions. The courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time.

Splitting controversy section

I think we should think seriously about splitting the "controversy" section into Terri Schiavo controversy as long as we maintain and preserve the key points of each subsection (Michael Schiavo, Bone scan, Schindler family, and 2003 petition). See also Misplaced Pages:Article_size for some issues related to this task. I think it's important to focus on Terri Schiavo, and if people want more information about these other issues, they should be able to find it easily. --Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would get it under the recommended size limit. Maybe we could get rid of the NPOV tag on the main page and just have it on the "controversy" page. Is there anything about Terri Schiavo that isn't controversial? I mean if NCdave says Michael murdered Terri for the money, and if we really have to pay attention to that sort of witchhunt mentality, then splitting it up will get the size down, but won't get an article that is free of the POV tag. If we have to get agreement from every moron with a conspiracy theory, it will always be disputed. And to me, one possible big advantage of splitting it up would be getting a chunk of stuff that people could agree on. I don't know. I know[REDACTED] has size recommendations, but if you take everything under controversy, you lose the "medical opinion" stuff, and then the whole history of Terri seems out of context. Unless we could agree that the "medical opinion" stuff is Neutral and save the video diagnosis and other voodoo for the controversy page. FuelWagon 11:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am suspicious that after a weekend of editing adding material with a pro-Michael Schiavo POV and deleting material with a pro-Schindler POV, the concern is now on size. Not certain but suspicious. Was there an official wiki determination that the pro-Michael Schiavo POV is the neutral POV? patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Proto said. The truth is never POV. If you dispute the truth, tough. An article on the Holocaust isn't going to be NPOV by including "pro-Holocaust" or holocaust-denier related material. If the truth tends to fall on Michael Schiavo's side, then that's just the way it is. Professor Ninja 15:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was supposed to be no POV ... as far as I can tell the article is finally fairly neutral, unless stating empirical truth can be construed as being pro-Michael Schiavo. Proto 14:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relevance Test

What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what's relevant in the Terri Schiavo article and what's not? I don't want to waste time or have anyone for that matter waste time researching and adding material only to have it deleted because it failed to pass another editor's relevance test. In the general case, a wiki article doesn't have a finely calibrated test for relevance merely factual accuracy. If the article has to be long because there are two or more sides to disputed claims, so be it. A one-sided presentation doesn't serve the user community. If this article is to have a netural POV, then its test for relevance ought to be neutrally stated rather that arbitrarily imposed ex post facto. patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

URL Test

What are the neutral and objective guidelines that one can apply to understand what material will require a URL to support it and what will not? If anyone can declare that material not having a URL to support it can be deleted, the editing of this article will plunge into chaos.

For example, in many cases there are only newspaper and wire service reports of what was in exhibits, statements, motions, depositions, or court orders. Does that constitute support or does such material for which there is no primary online source and yet no dispute regarding its existence (1) fail to meet the URL test and (2) can be immediately deleted? patsw 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cite your work as best you can, really. I generally try to follow a rule of thumb that if it's a second hand source, I cite try to cite two such sources to give independent confirmation of one another. I tend to ignore this little rule for more reputable sites like CNN or the BBC or whatnot, as they're generally accurate (a good 99% of the time.) Rags and whatnot, online or not, aren't even worth citing, and material that originates from such places (unless they're op-eds which you're quoting pieces from) aren't worth placing in the article at all. Most important is that people just want to see that you're not making it up whole cloth, or pulling "facts" from blogs, rags, or op-eds. Professor Ninja 16:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have written a similar test myself. To take this to something that is bound to be a point of contention, I have never seen a primary source of the February 25 1990 police report or the admitting report for Humana Northside, is there one? I have seen only secondary accounts which in part contradict the absence of trauma now in the article. If these secondary accounts of what is in the reports indicate a stiff or rigid neck, then how can that be reflected in the article without introducing POV? Rather than focusing on this one issue, how are conflicts among the secondary accounts resolved, when there is no online primary source, in a manner that does not introduce POV? patsw 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That might be tricky to find; medical reports are confidential, and generally police reports are public. I don't know what florida law is in respect to police responding to a medical emergency, but if those too are public you may be able to get a copy of it. If secondary accounts reflect that the initial report genuinely reflect something, than it's not necessarily POV. If the secondary report is genuinely reputable (ie: they don't have a liberal/conservative/pro-life/pro-euthanasia axe to grind) and can get confirmation from other sources, then putting in something along the lines of "On x day/199x/200x CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/BBC/ABC/Local Newspaper reported that Schiavo was displaying symptoms of rigidity in her neck ". It doesn't speculate as to what caused it, and it gives sources. I think most people would consider this sufficient to be reported on. I wouldn't report it as a definitive fact (make a point that is was reported) and I wouldn't speculate on what that means/could imply. Also, I wouldn't cite a source that doesn't provide examples from the report, or makes general paraphrases or draws conclusions from it. (In other words, count NewsMax out). Remember most importantly that if something is true, it supercedes it being POV. For example, alot of what's got most of this discussion page ragging on NCdave is that he disputes things that are undoubtedly factually accurate as being POV, and attempts to make it "NPOV" by countering facts with speculation. None of the editors have a problem with anything that's factually accurate (well, maybe some do, I've had certain edits reverted for having a "hypercritical mentality") as long as you don't make it up, speculate as to what it means, draw irrelevant conclusions. Rule of thumb: let common sense be your guide. Professor Ninja 22:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stiff neck and other odd physical characteristics.

Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia

• Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise
• Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight.
• Vomiting blood
• Using the bathroom frequently after meals.
• Preoccupation with body weight
• Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control.
• Swollen glands in neck and face
• Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation
• Irregular periods
• Dental problems, sore throat
• Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes

From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems.

I have done a little more research on why primary sources do not exist and we must go with the characterizations of them we have in testimony: Michael Schiavo has sealed the medical records of Terri Schiavo. So if we read in testimony by Drs. Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr information regarding the 1990 admission report and that testimony was not challenged, it is as close as we are going to get to the 1990 admission report, unless Michael Schiavo decides to release the medical records. So is the sworn testimony of two doctors -- for which I have a URL, considered to be POV or NPOV? For the sake of balance, is there an online source other than Bamkbakidis and Hammesfahr for what is contained in the hospital admission report? patsw 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It may help to see it in context to determine whether or not it's POV. If you have sworn testimony from two doctors, it's testimony, regardless of its credibility. We can insert critiques of the doctors if need be. What you can always do is format it and put it up here on the talk page for an ad hoc peer review before patching it into the article. Professor Ninja 12:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

User Tropix a possible sock puppet -- No.

Tropix started contributions to[REDACTED] two days ago. he's quite a fast learner because he just posted a change with a field. Very savvy. Either that, or he's a sock puppet to avoid a 3 revert rule. Does[REDACTED] do anything about sock puppets or do you have to put up with that sort of crap? FuelWagon 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why Tropix's post didn't show up here, but here it is in <ctrl-v> form: FuelWagon 00:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon has made a ridiculous assertion (except for the compliments, which are well-taken, but just barely). I have just one account 'Tropix', and I log in like just like everyone here is supposed to do. If I am a fast learner it is just because I am trying to do this right.

I have been trying to communicate in a useful way with FuelWagon on his talk page with, unfortunately, no productive results. Then I come here and see the above. A nice introduction.

Specifically, Mr FuelWagon removed what I considered a clear introductory summary from the Terri Schiavo article today and replaced it with an older garbled version. I thought it was reasonable to go to his talk page to discuss it with him. That apparently led him to start talking "sockpuppet" and "crap" here in public. I am not here to waste my time on such nonsense.

I want this article to be non-biased and factual, and that is why I am here. Specifically, I think an incoming reader will have a better introduction to this article with the following events to define the structure:

 1 - 1990 Terri Schiavo's heart attack and brain damage
 2 - 1992 The malpractice awards and settlements
 3 - To 1994 Her therapy
 4 - 1998 Micheal's petition to end her life
 5 - 2000 The court order that authorized Micheal to end life support
 6 - 2000-2005 The mass of appeals (summarized together)
 7 - 2005 Her death and the general circumstances

Given that, the reader can move on to the details. It can be done in just a few short paragraphs. Is this reasonable? Tropix 00:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Actually, Terri's therapy ended in 1992, not 1994. Her family had run out of money to pay for it. When the malpractice money was awarded, in January 1993, a 3/4 $million medical trust fund was created for Terri's care and rehabilitative therapy. The Schindlers wanted it to be used for that purpose (as Michael Schiavo had promised the court in November, 1992), but Michael Schiavo refused to permit her therapy to resume. The result was a big family argument on February 14, 1993. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I perhaps had bad information. My source was a site at the University of Miami which read "July 19, 1991 - Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994." I did think that was oddly late for the end of therapy. Tropix 07:22, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

The assertion I made was that you're a possible sock puppet. It seems qualified sufficiently with the word "possible" that it holds up to scrutiny. The "crap" of which I spoke was sock puppets in general since I could find nothing on[REDACTED] that said they actually do anything about sock puppets. As for your list, I note you've already changed your version from what you put on my talk page. So, perhaps there were some productive results after all. And I still think the core of this issue (Terri Schiavo, not you) is the legal battles between Michael and Terri's parents, which is represented well in the intro as it is. If you had to describe this story in one sentence, it would be the fight between michael to fulfill his wife's wishes versus the parents stated intent to keep her alive even if Terri had told them she would want the plug pulled. That's the crux of the story. The rest of it is narrative to put everything into context. FuelWagon 00:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be worse, Tropix. If FuelWagon suspected you of being a Christian, he'd really dis you. This is what he thinks of Christians. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, NCdave, the words I wrote, and the words you report me to have said, are in complete misalignment. I said Cheshire is biased because he writes opinion papers that espouse the conservative christian viewpoint. No disrespect to christians or christianity. It's just that Cheshire is biased, which means that if he gives an "expert medical opinion" on some issue like abortion, stem cell research, or right-to-die issues, his OPINION will lean one way. You had argued that his religious beliefs should be removed from the article, that it wasn't relevant. I said it is completely relevant, because he is weighing in as an "expert medical opinion", and the bias of his opinion needs to be noted. It's a conflict of interest that needs to be kept in context with his opinion. I'm not dis'ing him for his beliefs, nor am I dis'ing christianity. On the other hand, I have absolutely no respect for you, and it has nothing to do with your christian beliefs and everything to do with you continously putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I say (like this situation), and I end up having to waste my time defending my character from your libel and defamation. I never "dis"ed anyone.

Paranoia reigns supreme here. My list above was just typed from my mind while I was on this page. The text on your page was typed from my mind while I was there. No cut-and-paste. You can average the two if you wish, there is no special significance. Use either version you like, but I think it would improve the intro (if POV is neutral). That is what was there before you moved it out. I suggest bringing it back, leaving the copies you place in the sections, even though that is slightly redundant.

Why do I think the current intro is sloppy? Here is an example: it goes directly from her collapse in 1990 to a statement about the trial court, without a URL, and without even mentioning that the trial was in 2000, ten years later. That is sloppy by any standards. The trial is extremely significant because it is the predicate for everthing that happened afterwards, even in your view of this story. It can not be shuffled off into a muddle. I improved the intro by adding and dating three significant intervening steps plus the trial date, taking hardly any space. Other aspects were added by other editors and I did not object.

Indeed, I would describe the story differently. You think this is the story of Micheal vs the Schindlers. I think this is the story of Terri, the remarkable tragedy of her brain damage, and her life in the complete control of others. The article, after all, is "Terri Schiavo", not "Micheal vs The Schindlers".

Please stop hassling me, as with the sock puppet that has been placed on my talk page. That is childish witchhunting, and no way to get my respect. Tropix 02:52, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, even if he was a sock puppet, he's clearly not NCdave's sock puppet. Professor Ninja 04:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Professor Ninja: I am not Tropix. NCdave 07:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perry Fine quote removed, review

I just removed this from the main article. Any objections?

Perry G. Fine, the vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying: "What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it. In fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric... the word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded. People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap."

It seems a bit off topic since he's talking about end-stage illness rather than PVS patient. Also "blissful and euphoric" doesn't apply to PVS patients since they do not feel or register those kinds of experiences. Anyone demand it be put back in? It's a lot of text that isn't quite on topic, so I thought I'd trim it. FuelWagon 00:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat appropriate. It's clearly in the context of Schiavo, so it's relevant. What he's saying isn't that PVS patients feel pain. He's saying that even if, for the sake of argument, Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling pain, she would not be feeling pain due to starvation. You could always give it a little trim and put it in context, such as putting it after an area where people contend starving Terri to death is painful. You put, "However, Perry Fine said that even if Terri Schiavo was capable of feeling, that there is "nothing unpleasant about " and that "it can be quite blissful and euphoric". Professor Ninja 03:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, Terri was not in a PVS, so the argument about whether death by starvation or hydration is pleasant or unpleasant is relevant. But Professor Ninja is correct that there's a big difference between end-stage terminal illness and non-terminal patients like Terri. End-stage terminal patients often cease to experience hunger, but for a non-terminal patient death by starvation and dehydration is said to be ghastly:

"Dr. William Burke, a neurologist in St. Louis, was quoted by medical ethicist Wesley Smith as describing the agonizing process: “A conscious person would feel it (dehydration) just as you and I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water. Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.”

However, Terri received analgesics (apparently including occasional morphine), to control her pain. NCdave 07:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I never even said that. I never even said anything remotely similar to that. And we've gone over this morphine administration thing ad nauseum; administration of morphine is protocol/formality/standard practice, however you want to term it. If she was in pain then why did Mr. Schindler describe his daughter as looking peaceful or calm, or whatever term it was that he used? Aha! "Proof" to the contrary. Professor Ninja 15:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Never said what? I was quoting from an article, not from you. I included the link to the article at the end.

Also, administration of morphine (or other analgesics) to unconscious patients is definitely not protocol/formality/standard practice, simply because unconscious patients cannot feel pain or react to pain. For example, see which is a reference to a study of the use of analgesics and sedatives in terminal patients from whom life support has been withdrawn. The abstract notes that, "Patients who did not receive medication were comatose and considered incapable of benefiting from sedation and analgesia." In fact, sedation to unconsciousness is commonly used instead of analgesics, to give peace to patients who cannot be made comfortable with analgesics.

For most of 15 years Terri Schiavo had a standing order for analgesics to relieve menstrual pain. There's no way that her caregivers believed that she did not experience pain. She behaved as if she experienced pain, which is all, existentially speaking, we know for certain about anyone else's experience of pain. When someone behaves as if they are experiencing pain, the only rational conclusion is that they are experiencing pain, even though you can't prove it in an absolute sense.

Also, take at look at the Exit Protocol that her hospice doctor wrote up for her in 2001. Take special note of the instructions to use analgesics for symptoms of pain and discomfort: "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn." Plainly, he thought she could experience pain. A patient who is unconscious does not react to pain stimulus, and so there are no "symptoms of pain/discomfort," and therefore no analgesics can be given in response to such symptoms. NCdave 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't peaceful or calm. For somebody in the throws of the agony, desperately in need of morphine to control the crippling pain of being starved to death by a vast left-wing conspiracy of jockeying profiteer husbands, pet judges bound by a leash to Michael Schiavo's Satanic pentagram nipple clamps and supported by his barking partisans, she apparently, after nearly two weeks was doing darn good. Hmm... need to reconcile, need to reconcile. Michael Schiavo probably constructed an elaborate sock puppet or papier mache marionette to bamboozle Clinton-loving communist "journalists" as to why Mr. Schindler "was pleasantly surprised by what saw" and how he was sure his daughter was "doing darn good under the circumstances.". Check. Your move. Professor Ninja 15:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Professor, I'm not averse to a shortened version being put back in. I'm not in favor of it enough to do it myself though. If you want to take the time to trim it, go for it. Otherwise it doesn't look like anyone else is missing it, and we can archive this section of talk. FuelWagon 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NCdave is a troll

Professor Ninja's question pulled from archive 18

all serious, has dave pushed it so far by now that we can just pretty much consider all his edits vandalism? Professor Ninja 12:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. This revision tells us all we need to know. I suggest everything NCdave edits to the actual article be reverted as trolling and possibly even his edits here. His recent attempts to denigrate other users who don't favor his opinion is more reason for KOS. →Vik Reykja 09:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those three links, Vikreykja. They are, indeed, illustrative of what's going on here.

The first link (which you say "tells us all we need to know") is a correction that I made to my own previous comment, which I had made two minutes earlier. I first said that in 1992 Terri's "family and Michael ran out of money to pay for" her therapy. But I realized that wasn't really correct. The Schindlers had been paying for her therapy, not Michael. In fact, Michael (who at the time had no job) was being supported by the Schindlers. So I corrected my previous comment to say, "her family had run out of money to pay for it."

Pray tell how correcting my own comment to make it more precisely accurate constitues being a "troll," Vikreykja?

The second link shows where I added an a note indicating who had written the previous paragraph, which was this unsigned attack on me and on all "conservative Christians," in which FuelWagon wrote:

"What are you, an absolute mindless machine? CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT doesn't evoke any sort of possible BIAS against purely scientific and medical diagnosis?... blindly obediant robot... Take the red freaking pill and for once in your otherwise automaton life, THINK."

That was FuelWagon's way of arguing that a highly credentialed neurologist who is also a practicing Episcopalian is, because of his conservative Christian faith, unable to make an unbiased medical judgment about whether a patient is vegetative or conscious. As your link shows, Vikreykja, I refrained from responding in kind, but simply posted the correct attribution of those words, in which I said, "BTW, that unsigned outburst was contributed by FuelWagon. NCdave 04:48, 12 Apr 2005"

Listen you little punk, I never waged an "attack on all conservative Christians". You are putting more words in my mouth. I said Cheshire's diagnosis of Terri should also mention that he "writes papers on stem cell reseach and other issues espousing a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT". They're NOT EVEN MY WORDS, I was QUOTING FROM A NEWSPAPER. So, unless you're saying the newspaper is attacking all conservative christians, then we simply have more of you twisting what I said into what you want it to mean. The only one I'm attacking there is YOU, because you think Chesire is unbiased. And I have no problem attacking someone who wants to remove someone's bias in an attempt to present their diagnosis as more neutral. Nor do I have a problem attacking someone who keeps twisting my words around and misrepresenting what I said. Cheshire is biased and that needs to be mentioned in the article alongside his diagnosis. And you're a punk for taking that and turning it into an attack on all christianity. FuelWagon 16:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quoted you accurately, FuelWagon. You said that a highly credentialed neurologist could not make an unbiased medical and scientific judgment solely because he is a conservative Christian. That means that you believe that conservative Christians cannot make unbiased medical and scientific judgments, simply because they are conservative Christians. That is an attack on everyone who shares his Faith. NCdave 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're an idiot. If you "quoted me accurately", then you QUOTED A NEWSPAPER because that's where that text came from, you moron. And therefore whatever interpretation you try to put on my words, you're actually attributing to a NEWSPAPER. So, you're saying a newspaper is mounting an attack on all christians and trashing an entire religion. FuelWagon 19:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The debated text is in the Terri Schiavo[REDACTED] entry right now. Right next to the text is a link to an article in the Kansas City Star. To quote the newspaper article: "Cheshire, also trained in bioethics, graduated from and is an adjunct professor at Trinity University, and has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint." That's what got put into the Terri Schiavo article in wikipedia. It's quoting from the Kansas City Star newspaper. That's where the text "attacking all christians and trashing an entire religion" came from, you idiot. Did you ever follow the link like I told you? You f**king moron. So, YOU'RE NOT QUOTING ME, YOU'RE ATTACKING ME FOR WORDS I QUOTED FROM A NEWSPAPER. Write the Kansas City Star and attack them. FuelWagon 19:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And because I'm not certain you can even find the right link, I'm including it here for your benefit FuelWagon 20:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here is the text that I put in the[REDACTED] article: "Cheshire sees patients at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and teaches at Trinity International University, a Christian institution. Cheshire has written opinion articles on stem-cell research and other scientific debates espousing a conservative Christian viewpoint." The only difference was I combined another sentence from the article that says he sees patients at the Mayo Clinic, which I thought was also relevent. If you had actually read the article, you would have seen that, instead of attacking me for quoting a newspaper. FuelWagon 20:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know your religion, FuelWagon, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are of the Jewish Faith. If I were to assert that the professional judgements you reach in your chosen profession must be biased, because you are Jewish, then wouldn't you say that was a prejudiced statement, and wouldn't you be offended by it? NCdave 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The third link has three comments from me, all to and about new user Tropix. One was a reply to Tropix, correcting a detail about the chronology of the Schiavo case (her therapy ceased in 1992, not 1994). The next was also a reply to Tropix, this time about FuelWagon's attacks on Tropix as ("possible sockpuppet" and by calling Tropix's contributions "crap"), in which I linked to a diff showing FuelWagon's attack on "conservative Christians," to show Tropix the kind of vitriol that he could expect from FuelWagon should FuelWagon come to believe that Tropix is a Christian. The third comment was my statment that "I am not Tropix." NCdave 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, pray tell, Vikrekja, why do you think that when FuelWagon trashes an entire religion, and engages in blatant name-calling and personal attacks on other WikiPedians, you get mad at the target of his abuse?

"Trashes an entire religion" Listen, jerk, I never trashed anyone but you because you can't seem to see any bias in Cheshire's background. The same way I trashed you for quoting Dr. Boyle endlessly as if he were a neutral source, even after I pointed out his comment on his blog that "all Democrats are out to murder Terri". No bias there. No bias with Cheshire, either. You're a moron. You pick the diagnosis you want, ignore any possible bias in their opinions, and present it as fact. When I point out individual bias, I'm "trashing an entire religion". You are clueless about what NPOV means. And you're a punk for twisting my words to demonize me into someone who would "trash an entire religion". FuelWagon 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, please tell me, Vikrekja, what is "KOS?" NCdave 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kill On Sight. In other words, revert without even reading. I will not be baited into replying to your other comments so don't expect one. →Vik Reykja 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one's filed an RFC against him. Mike H 10:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I now have. If you have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, please sign that you certify the basis for the dispute. If you did not have an active role, but still agree with the description, sign under "other users who endorse this summary." Mike H 11:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you should take the time to inform a user on their discussion page (not that I don't disagree with the filing of an RFC in this case) - this just gives them less to complain about subsequqntly. Proto 11:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to; I had just become sidetracked. Mike H 11:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, isn't it abnormal to edit an archived page? I don't get this at all, he goes into Archive 16 and edits it after its creation. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the archive? Isn't he, in fact, using the archive to make it appear as if nobody's responding to his "well reasoned" argument, or am I getting overly paranoid about him? Professor Ninja 18:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

When someone "archives" an active discussion, just hours after the last contribution to it, does that mean that the discussion must end? Is that some sort of Misplaced Pages rule that I overlooked?

How about if the person who archives the discussion first prunes from it the comments with which he disagrees? Is that kosher?

Here's an illustrative excerpt from Archive17:

NCdave, my rundown of Iyer's affadavit has been archived here . -FuelWagon

Minus my comment at the end of it, of course. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you blame me for restoring to the archive the comment which I had already added before it was archived? NCdave 16:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed not normal to do such a thing. Only put it under evidence if he's the only one who has done this. Mike H 21:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have 13 edits by NCdave across 4 archives . However, other users have also edited the archives, but not particularly to the extent NCdave has. Only six other users (mostly red links) seem to have made singular edits across the 18 archives. All others seem to be from IPs or NCdave. I dunno, it seems like evidence, but circumstantial.

Above was mine. Addendum: a removal from the archived page of criticisms of NCdave originating from 210.23.187.247 - other edits from 210.23.187.247 Only other edit to archive 13 by StuartGathman seems NCdave POV enforcement. edits to archive 1 first edit constitutes vandalism as does the second edit a response to the first vandalism and a third instance of vandalism. the only edit to archive 2 is a response to NCdave's Hammesfahr assertions, it is also Ncbill's first contribution ever and thus may have been a simple mistake. the sole edit to archive 7 is NCdave-style POV enforcement from IP 68.94.203.222 only other edit from this IP include vandalism to the Terri Schiavo article. Only edit to archive 10 is from Iceberg3k responding to NCdave. Edits in archive 11 consitute vandalism and two responses to NCdave from 203.32.94.32, as well as two responses from Vt-aoe (from Vt-aoe's second link it seems he was making a good faith, though misguided attempt to bring the archives into wikipedia-friendly format.

That is literally all the edits to the archived page. So out of 29 edits to the archives, NCdave has made 13, while only 5 of the 29 edits were made in any sort of good faith; two of those times to respond to NCdave, three times to respond in a fashion of[REDACTED] tutorial (style guides, language, citations), one of which made in response to vandalism. So. Does that constitute evidence, or what? Professor Ninja 22:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Terri's weight - Question about discrepency

In the Wiki Article Terri's highest weight is listed as 200 lbs. In Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush it is listed as 250 lbs. Wolfson's is the only court document I've found a weight listed in, so I am wondering where the 200 figure came from.

All the accounts I have read put her peak weight at "around" 200 lbs. From the photographic record, I can't see a point in the timeline when she could actually be 5' 4" and 250 lbs. (Has anyone seen a photo of Terri at 250 lbs.?) The Wolfson Report has its own point of view and its own errors: Look a few lines down and you will see "bare witness" rather than "bear witness". I don't think this is such a big deal. "200" is the number that appears in numerous interviews with former friends from Philadelphia and her family, and only they would be in a position to know, so where Wolfson got "250" in December 2003 is a bit of a mystery. I would go with the consensus of these independent interviews rather than Wolfson on this one. patsw 14:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if an error of 250 is in the same vein as bare/bear. The latter is a simple homophone confusion that pops up as a typographic error to pretty much everybody. The former is something entirely different; 250 doesn't sound like 200, it doesn't look like it, and the keys are far enough apart to preclude it from being a simple mistype. I don't think they're similar at all in terms of errors; maybe a different example would be better. As it stands, it's possible that the estimation of "around" 200 lbs. just took her girth, not her weight, into account and fired off an approximation, 250 lbs. may have come from a more accurate source. Though the point you raise about 5'4" @ 250 lbs. is a good one, I don't think it's totally improbable. Professor Ninja 15:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Newsweek writes, "By 1981, in her senior year at an all-girls Roman Catholic high school, she had reached as much as 250 pounds—at which point she went on a NutriSystem diet and quickly lost about 100 pounds." The link is currently in the article after the weight, but somebody changed the weight to 200. --Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be more credence to the Wolfson report, as he had the opportunity to review the court record and--more importantly--her medical records (weight loss being an important part of her medical record, esp. for the medmal case), rather than anecdotal evidence (my god, how many people really tell their friends/family their real weight and are really accurate in assessing someone's weight unless they have reason to be an expert in that area?). (Also, there was a previous discussion on this in Archive 15: Early life-Weight Loss Discrepency.) Additionally, please be careful when bandying about the word "error"--there is a major difference between factual error and a typo, legal error and a typo, etc. Thanks.--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 17:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unusually stiff neck

I had put this bullet list in last night and it was removed. Why I don't know. Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia

       * Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise
       * Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight.
       * Vomiting blood
       * Using the bathroom frequently after meals.
       * Preoccupation with body weight
       * Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control.
       * Swollen glands in neck and face
       * Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation
       * Irregular periods
       * Dental problems, sore throat
       * Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes

From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems. Wjbean 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length

Am I the only one who thinks the article is way too long? By just looking at how long it is, I feel scared by the thought of reading it. No offence against Terri and her family, but she was not that important. I mean, this must be the biggest article on Misplaced Pages. R.I.P. Terri.

EliasAlucard|Talk 16:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, you are 100% correct in regards to the article length, and we are in the process of splitting the article to bring it down to size. --Viriditas | Talk 15:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I copied some stuff into the section about the relationship between Michael and teh Schindlers. The hope is that soem of the stuff could be taken out of the section specific to Michael or specific to the Schindlers, since it involves both sides. I haven't done that yet. won't get to it tonight probably. So, right now, it looks like duplicate text. Sorry, but if you're looking for places to trim, that would be one place. The valentine's day argument should really be in the relationship section, not just the Schindlers. FuelWagon 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Web Accessibility

Text of 1998 petition to remove Terri's feeding tube, i.e., discontinue "artifical life support" and "artificial sustenance"

Please comment if you cannot access this linked page or if you believe it to be a forgery, or if you know where there is another archive of it. patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't access that file. --Viriditas | Talk 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can access the file fully; furthermore I stand corrected on two grounds, first the assumption that Michael would have inherited a portion of the estate had he divorced prior to her death. Apparently Florida law does cover such a proviso, and second this seems to be the basis for Michael's assertion that Terri's parents also had a financial conflict of interest, which I had previously dismissed out of hand. Consider my foot squarely in my mouth. Professor Ninja 18:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the Schindler's were motivated by their financial interest in the estate has been consistently denied by them. Since they had maintained from the start their intention to sustain the life of and help rehabilitate Terri, it is certain that they would spend the malpractice settlement funds -- if it had been made available to them -- for the duration for which the award was made: for the remainder of her natural life even if she did not recover more brain function. Michael, as we have learned, wanted to implement what he characterized as Terri's wishes to die by dehydration and starvation. (Something he failed to disclose during the malpractice trial.) If such wishes were implemented in 1996, his financial interest would be substanially greater. To accuse the Schindlers of a desire to become "rich" on the malpractice award is after all this is cruel and nonsense. Terri's death by court order in 1996 would have yielded a substantial payday for Michael. On the other hand, for the Schindlers to have been awared guardianship in 1996 would mean a long and uncertain future and perhaps a substantial financial burden in the care of Terri until the end of her natural life. patsw 18:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same criticisms apply to the characterization of Michael Schiavo. My point wasn't that these accusations were right or wrong, it was that these accusations have some ground in legal reality. I had previously dismissed Michael's assertion that the Schindlers stood to profit as patently ridiculous, however it seems such a situation is possible under Florida law. Furthermore, Michael didn't assert that Terri stated she wanted to die by dehydration and starvation -- to claim this is, ironically, the very type of characterization you seem to take issue with. Michael asserted that Terri would not want to be kept on life support if she was unsalvagable. To state that he didn't claim this during the malpractice trial is a moot point; Michael petitioned the court to remove the feeding tube after Terri's physician indicated Terri would not recover well after the malpractice trial. It would be 1) irrelevant to the malpractice trial to offer such testimony and 2) irrelevant to the idea that Michael, during the malpractice trial, may very well have believed that Terri stood a chance for recovery which changed when her physician informed him should would not stand such a chance. Be careful where you're going with this, you're bordering on becoming the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 18:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I find the POV you show to be inherent in referring to a feeding tube to be "life support". There is no consensus among the American public that a feeding tube is at the same level of intervention in the process of living and dying as mechanical assistance to replace the organic function of a heart, lung, kidney, or liver. Clarity in using the term "feeding tube" to refer to "life support" as the court petitions do is essential to removing POV from the article.

Another POV running through the article is that the would not recover condition is certain in Terri's particular case or even relevant to the intrinsic worth of human life in public policy and medical ethics. While it would not have been relevant to disclose these wishes during the trial, it would have been relevant for Michael to diclose these wishes to the Schindler family in 1990 rather than 1998. Finally, the fact that this particular court found no inherent value in Terri's life because of testimony that Terri would not recover does make it a neutral point of view. It merely makes it one point of view among many. patsw 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Florida law defines a feeding tube as life support. That isn't POV. If you wanted to go for the stretch then there's no real consensus among the American public on anything. However, since the American public isn't relevant to this, only the Florida public, then all that matters is Florida law. Which says that a feeding tube is life support. Period. As for your assertion that people who contend that removal of life support constitutes worth of human life is patently ridiculous; you're spouting off the fallacy of equivocation. Nobody but the most degraded of vandals (and even then they're in the vast minority of vandals) claims that Terri Schiavo's life had no worth. You're very, very rapidly turning into the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix the POV problem around this. In the "feeding tube" section, I started out by saying that Florida law defines a feeding tube to be life support. Those who wanted to keep Terri alive preferred the term "feeding tube" because it is emotive. food is emotive, so is the empathetic response of readers to think about "starving to death". Never mind that Terri was PVS and can't feel anything. So, "feeding tube" is good for their POV. Those who thought Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive in her condition likely preferred the term "life support" precisely because it is less emotive and more connotative. Life Support connotates images of a bank of machines keeping someone alive, someone who is comatose or unconscious, and someone who is never going to recover. I'm not sure if teh article should say "life support" or "feeding tube" always, or if the Schindlers invocation of emotive language should be reflected in the article or what. I believe that Terri would have never recovered and I believe that she was PVS, unconscious, unaware, and couldn't feel. And mainly because she fits the connotation of "life support" more than she fits the emotive image of "feeding tube", I'd tend towards "life support". As to the "would not recover" comment, I know several neutral doctors diagnosed Terri as such, and that's a NPOV fact to report. non-neutral sources can be quoted to say otherwise, but their bias needs to be noted in teh article as well. FuelWagon 20:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Florida law says its life support; thus life support is the correct term. Life support connotes nothing but something which supports life beyond the means of the body. If this is an iron lung with "banks of machines" or simple intubation is not relevant. Life support is the correct NPOV term. Professor Ninja 20:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the section of florida statute that defines artificial sustenance and hydration as a "life-prolonging procedure." It is from F.S. 765.101.

10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

In the first paragraph, I'd prefer something along the lines of "The judicial and legislative battles surrounding the discontinuation of Schiavo's artificially provided sustenance and hydration generated tremendous media coverage during the last two weeks of her life and prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights."

It is most legally precise. I realize I'll be chided for wanting to use a euphemism to describe the situation, but please believe that is not my intent. My intent is to be as precise as possible and that precision involves using the same language that Florida Statutes use; indeed, sticking to the statute language necessarily resolves POV disputes, since it is the law of the land. I can see, though, that the sentence is awkward, so, feel free to mess with it if you'd like! (:--Minaflorida 20:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would greatly like to hug you for that, Minaflorida. What a wonderful legal eagle you are. Hopefully this will tone down the accusations of POV on this subject. Is it correct, then, or euphemistic to refer to "life-prolonging procedure" as "life support"? Professor Ninja 20:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be correct or not. Florida statutes do not use the terminology "life support" but its definition is nearly identical to the statute's definition of a "life-prolonging procedure." The danger in using "life support" as opposed to "life-prolonging procedure" is that it is not the proper legal term for artificially provided sustenance and nutrion--much like partial-birth abortion was not an appropriate legislative term because it was not the proper medical term for the process described in Federal legislation, but I digress. (; Unless we can verify that the majority of doctors in the state of Florida actually refer to life-prolonging procedures as "life support," (which I surmise is true, but that's not good enough) I'd lean toward using the bulky and awkward, yet accurate terms. I am not entirely opposed to using "life support," as it is factually accurate. Feeding tube, however, is accurate as well. Since there has been such a charged discussion on these terms, I think it's best to make everyone happy (presumably) by using the specific legal terms. "Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" refers both to the fact that it was life support and the fact that it was a feeding tube. I'm no legal eagle. I'm just a language lover. Additonally, I work for the Legislature and have gotten really good at navigating our statutes. (: Thanks for the compliment.--Minaflorida 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there was actually a discussion on this subject already -- see archive 15 life support v. feeding & hydration where I point out life-prolonging procedures is the technical term in Florida, although life-support is equally acceptable, quote the statute, touch upon In re Browning, etc. Using Florida's precise term doesn't seem to make anyone happy (except, apparently, those of us who live and work in Florida). Good luck (keep trying!)Mia-Cle 21:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I absolutely missed that in all the clutter, Mia-Cle. Actually I think this has been argued ad nauseum by everybody by now, so. Professor Ninja 22:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It has been argued ad nauseum, and probably will continue to be ad infinitum. oh well. (It's really arguing a distinction without a difference--although I haven't done the legal research, I sincerely doubt that there is any legal distinction between "life-supporting," "life-sustaining," "life-maintaining," or "life-prolonging.") However, I am very happy to see "life-prolonging procedures" in the article as those are the words we use in Fla. It'll be interesting to see how long it lasts (call me a cynic).Mia-Cle 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cynic? Realist. Sadly. Professor Ninja 02:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Paraphrase vs. primary source

I believe the paraphrase of the discussion of the 1993 urinary tract infection to be POV and the remedy I propose is to insert the actual Wolfson report text from which the paraphrase is derived. I am not inserting my own paraphrase but the text of the report -- how can that itself introduce POV? Over and over again editors have substituted actual external text for user submitted text to remove POV. What's different about this case? patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your "remedy" involved removing content from the report that you didn't like. --Viriditas | Talk 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legal Grist for the mill

This link, http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, provides a detailed breakdown of all legal actions regarding Terri and Michael Shaivo. It's long, but is worth the read. Wjbean 15:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw - since you'll be curious why I reverted your edit

It was the definition of bloat. Adding length to the article for pure speculation is not an encyclopaedic entry whatsoever. Putting in that Felos claimed Schiavo was cremated doesn't contribute anything. As far as I can ascertain, there's absolutely no reason, no matter how far fetched, to lie about cremating somebody. Therefore we take the date of cremation prima facie. Also, saying there's no news on the burial is pointless. There's no news on alot of things; you don't go updating everything for what has no news on it. If and when this becomes relevant, then it belongs in the article. Professor Ninja 18:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

In my judgment, (1) It would proper at the start of a new section to use her first name, this is simply a concern of style. (2) News articles that you can see in News Google couched the cremation in speculative language -- so yes there was doubt. I ascertained from a news report of Felos press release that confirmed the cremation -- whom I am not doubting on this point. (3) I made the judgment that for 10 days to pass without her ashes being buried after a public promise to do so is significant and encyclopaedic. What's your threshold for taking note of the non-fulfillment of this promise? Is it 20 days, 30 days, a year?

It would be helpful for me as well as other editors, Professor Ninja, to define bloat to avoid a problem like this in the future. patsw 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) I never took issue with that, anywhere, ever. (2) Misplaced Pages articles are not news reports. That's what WikiNews is for. (3) Counter-point: What's your threshhold for fulfilling the promise? 9 days, 1 day, an hour? No, the threshold is if and when it becomes reasonable to include based on common sense. If it comes up that Michael Schiavo has not and does not intend to bury Terri, then it is relevant.

It would be helpful for you as well as other editors, Patsw, if you looked up what[REDACTED] is not and followed common sense and logical guidelines to avoid a problem like this in the future. Professor Ninja 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uncited statements? Under "Michael Shiavo"

Where does the information in the below paragraph come from? There is no cite associated with it.

On May 1, 2000, a court hearing was cancelled after Schiavo said he would sign an agreement that his wife will get necessary medical treatment at a hospice instead of a hospital or a long-term care facility, in violation of the malpractice settlement. Then on June 18, after reneging on his agreement, Schiavo signed an amended agreement stating he will not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

Has anyone seen the malpractice settlement? How do we know that the agreement referred to was in violation of it? Moreover, I find the statement "after reneging on his agreement" unnecssarily pejorative and therefore prejudicial and POV. Do we have evidence of the second agreement? LRod 216.76.216.142 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add this nor would I. Part of the issues faced in 2000 was the concern that Terri would receive less than appropriate care in a hospice than a registered nursing care facility. As part of an agreement to cease litigating her transfer from Palm Gardens Nursing Home to Woodside Hospice, the agreement to treat Terri for infections was drawn up. The interval from May 1 to June 18 to get a simple agreement signed is used in Terri's advocacy sites as an example of Michael's bad faith, pettiness, and indifference to Terri's suffering.

As for the malpractice settlement, as with all the documents which the court or the Schindlers did not make public, Michael hasn't made this public nor does he have an obligation to do so. This is the primary source problem I mentioned yesterday. How to judge what people say about documents which we are not likely to see. The claim is made that by accepting the malpractice award for Terri's care, the guardian had to provide care to a stipulated standard which a hospice did not have.

With reference the text that's been quoted, the relevant part is that Terri was transferred, the Schindlers objected, and that Michael and the Schindlers were divided on the question of treating Terri for infections. It may be redundant to all the disputed claims before and after June 2000 to include this. patsw 21:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valentine's Day rewritten

The original valentines day argument is presented in pretty much from Mary Schindler's point of view. I removed it and placed it here, for review:

The cause of the breakdown in communication between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo is controversial. There was an apparent confrontation on St. Valentine's Day of 1993. On that day, Michael Schiavo was in Terri's nursing home room studying to become a nurse. When the Schindlers arrived, Michael maintains that Bob Schindler began to demand money, became belligerent, and stormed out of the room. According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance. While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter. They chose Randall Terry as their official spokesman.

I replaced it with excerpts from the wolfson and pearse reports which are a bit more neutral. I also moved it to the section "family relationship" so it isn't specific to the Schindlers any more. I'd like to trim down some of the stuff that is in the Michael section but should be in the "relationship" section.

Complaints about the cut, move, and rewrite? FuelWagon 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't find the original to be from Mary Schindler's POV but only supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive for the split between him and the Schindler's. The Schindler's claim that with the money in hand, Michael immediately changed from seeking rehabilitation for Terri to seeking to hasten her death by denying treatment to Terri and blocking the Schindler's access to her medical records and restricting visitation. Michael as guardian was acting within his legal rights and he kept this guardianship and right to inherit the estate in spite of rather than because of testimony like this from the 1993 hearing:

Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri’s infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?

Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.

Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?

Michael: No.

Left untreated, the infection would eventually have caused sepsis and Terri's death. Fortunately the nursing home eventually gave Terri the antibiotics anyway, and she recovered. It's details like this lead one believe that the big change in his attitude came when the check cleared in early 1993 rather than years later at the time of the first petition to withdraw the feeding tube.

For the revision of the VD section, it's a huge improvement. If I could I would change "agressive treatments" to be "rehabilition which had been deferred because of lack of funds" which removes the need to make an editorial judgement about calibrating from "ordinary" to "agressive".

So you don't think comments like According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance. While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter are POV? I guess it must be us anti-Terri Michael Schiavo partisans gettin' uppity. Professor Ninja 07:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

By this:

supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive

you meant supporting Mary's view that 'greed' was the motive, correct? Since it's quoting Mary's words, it is by definition, Mary's point of view. Unless you think that Mary's view is Neutral Point Of View, in which case, please read up on NPOV. The reason I changed it to the two reports submitted by independent parties was to have a more NPOV take on what happened, since the two people appointed by the courts are more likely to be truly neutral. FuelWagon 15:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Splitting article

This article is getting seriously lengthy. I propose turning it into a private/public split as was earlier proposed by another user who's name eludes me. Essentialy one could make an article about the Public involvement in the Terri Schiavo case with sections 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 & 9.6. This would be an intelligent fork in the article as the rest of the sections deal with the private aspects of the Schiavo case. It would at least help in reducing it in size. Any comments? Professor Ninja 00:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Explaining public interest

Over on RfC/NCdave, patsw suggests that this article is "basically useless for understanding why public interest in this case was so great or how anyone could ever come to doubt the motives of Michael Schiavo." Is this true? To take the points in reverse order, I think that there is some material there to support why one might doubt Michael's motives, but it is neither comprehensive, nor gathered in one place. Is this a flaw? Do we have an encyclopædic duty to explain why he might be doubted? On the other point, other than the memo issue and related political opportunism, and a few bullet-points on rhetorical terms, I don't think that there is much to explain the public interest. Maybe this is just too controversial to cover, but it is a valid issue that we fail to describe a significant dimension. Bovlb 03:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Not really. The page is becoming excessively long in point/counterpoint points-of-view. The reason why material needs to get excised is it's either a) blatant agitprop stated as fact or b) totally extraneous to the article. If you look at a revert I did of about four edits, three vandalism and one from Patsw, you can see that if he takes issue with the Michael Schiavo "phony NPOV" it's in a very questionable way. I'm apparently enforcing a POV by excising a few words of totally extraneous information. Patsw often makes use of colinear rhetoric (ie: his bull works both ways) and doesn't acknowledge that it does. I've tried cooperating and offering him some tips for what to put in and what to keep out; he just ignores them out of hand and starts giving orders. Just as NCDave is off, Patsw is in, which is a shame because at first glance he seemed like an able collaborator.

As for the idea of understanding the public debate over this, the general consensus is that the article is primarily about Terri Schiavo and her immediate biography, for want of a better term, and not as a pulpit for right-to-lifers or right-to-deathers, due to size. Which is why I proposed above moving the public stuff to a separate article. Professor Ninja 04:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Play the ball, not the man. Or as Doolittle said, "the concept is valid no matter where it originates." These points seem refreshingly sensible compared to many that have been raised here, and I'd like to explore whether it's possible to address them directly. It's certainly better than indirect attempts to move the balance point around by insertion of innuendo. Can we explain why Terri became a matter of national interest without creating a pulpit? It seems both encyclopædic and relevant. I can see your point about splitting the article, but I think it would be hard to separate, for example, legislative efforts into the personal and public consequences. Bovlb 05:47, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Legislative efforts, I think, would fall under the public portion of it; they naturally have consequences for everybody involved. The only legislative piece that really belongs in this article is the federal legislation Bush passed, given that it was directed solely at one individual, who happens to be the article's focus. As for explaining what caused it, God... uh, the Schindlers made alot of noise, but that doesn't always cause something to become a public spectacle like this did. Can you really ever explain succinctly what caused something to enter public conciousness? I think you can sum up the public feelings on it, but mass behaviourism is a can of worms I don't even want to try opening. The length of it alone, the various theories, the edit wars... yech. Professor Ninja 06:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

two legislative efforts, sorry -- the 2003 Terri's Law was state legislative action (which allowed the gov to reinsert the feeding tube and raised Florida constitutional questions completely unrelated to the probate case) and I think it kicked off some national awareness (when did Dateline, et al., start coverage; when did money start rolling in to support the Schindlers--this type of info would be indicators if this state action did, indeed, raise public awareness) then the feds in 2005.64.132.60.202 13:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)Mia-Cle

RE:

basically useless for understanding why public interest in this case was so great or how anyone could ever come to doubt the motives of Michael Schiavo

Well, by "public", does that mean "people who think Michael abused Terri and wants to pull the plug to silence her and get her malpractice money and created a grand conspiracy of judges, nurses, doctors, guardian ad litems, and the police to accomplish it" ??? Because if you start from that point of view, you end up with that point of view.

The article, in my mind, should present the facts of the case, what is known, what both sides actually said, and what was actually done or decided. These facts should be limited to Michael, Terri, the Schindlers, the courts, court appointed doctors, doctors who actually examined Terri, and people who were a part of Terri's story.

Anything else is public opinion pieces, someone who read stuff in a newspaper or a blog and wants to chime in on their opinion. Dr. Boyle's blog is public opinion and should be treated the same as any other guy with an opinion. Public opinion is separate from the facts of the case. Some guy took out a murder contract on Michael. That can be reported as a fact, but the guy's OPINION that Michael is a murderer who deserves to die does not deserve one iota of space in Misplaced Pages. His opinion is indefensible. Anyone who complains that the[REDACTED] article should show his point of view, should explain how he ever came to doubt Michael's motives and take out a contract to have him killed, needs to wake up. It is completely POV to allow space for every asshole with an opinion to chime in on this. This seems to be the basis for why people consider this article POV, because IT WON"T LET THEM STATE THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT MICHAEL. The facts known about the case are starting to come together and are starting to get presented froma factual point of view, and some people demand the POV flag or ACCURACY flag because we keep taking out third party opinions on the subject. Dr Boyle and his assertion that all Democrats are out to murder Terri invalidates his opinion as being NPOV. Yet, since we resist attempts to put in Boyle's comments on Terri's CT scan, we are accused of POV. I have no problem quoting any court document when it is explained in complete context. But the opinions of people on the sidelines, the third-party folks who have an agenda to murder michael physically or convict him in a COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION do not deserve space on wikipedia. They can get air time on Jerry Springer, but they do not deserve to be presented alongside the actual facts of the matter from court documents, neutral witnesses, neutral doctors who actually examined Terri, and other object and neutrally obtained information.

That[REDACTED] will not succumb to mob rule and instead sticks to the known facts of the case is a GOOD thing, not a matter of being POV. FuelWagon 15:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

keep this header at bottom until talk page unbreaks itself

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics