Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 27

message: From Wikipedia:Wikiquette
*Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
*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)
thread_title: Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

message: Both sections can be split and merged into one article, leaving at least two paragaphs in the main article, one for each section.  --Viriditas  | Talk 05:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, sounds good ... activism is just public opinion of an extreme sort anyway.  Something like 'Activism and Public Opinion in the Terri Schiavo case'? I'm for it. Proto 08:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 2nd.  See my comments on reducing the article size.--ghost 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: third-ed. Can we declare the "Terri Shiavo" article to be the "main" article, and have it reference all the "sub articles" in one location? FuelWagon 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Creationism has a nice table called  that's used in most subs.  Anyone able to do this for Terri Schiavo off-the-cuff?  If not, I'll learn the code this wkd.--ghost 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought I'd have a look, and see if I could do it.  Then I did [have a look], and now I want someone else to do it. Templates are hard, yo. Proto t c 14:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, the best looking templates I've seen to rip off is on The Matrix, at the bottom.  Not sure if Terri Schiavo will ever need a complex one, as at the most you'd have at the top the main article, then at level 2 the split-off articles, 'Government involvement ...' and (hopefully) 'Disputes ...' and 'Public Opinion ...', then at level 3, the timeline, the Schiavo memo and the Palm Sunday Compromise. Proto t c 14:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge and split public opinion and activism section 

message: The opening paragraph of the article currently says, in part:
:"Eight doctors examined Schiavo. Six (her family physician, three doctors selected by the courts, and two selected by Michael) diagnosed her to be in a persistent vegetative state. Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. The two remaining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) dissented, arguing that Schiavo was in a 'minimally conscious state.'
Consider the numerous inaccuracies and examples of POV bias in just that little snippet:
* It invents two non-existent doctors "selected by the courts" who (supposedly) diagnosed her to be in a PVS.  (I first pointed out this problem weeks ago, and nobody expressed disagreement with me, and nobody was able to identify the two mystery doctors... but the false statement remains in the article.)
* It ignores the disagreement between Judge Greer and his chosen doctor, Peter Bambakidis.  Even Bambakidis did not rule out the possibility that Terri was conscious. He said only that a "preponderance of evidence" (the weakest evidentiary standard) supported PVS.
* It omits the Cheshire diagnosis, that Terri was probably in a MCS.
* It hides the fact that the so-called "family physician" was actually part of the M.Schiavo/Felos-selected team working for Terri's demise.
* It omits mention of the numerous affidavits from other doctors who disagreed with the PVS diagnosis.  The Schindlers were only allowed to have two doctors examine Terri, ever. Even that was allowed only because a higher court ordered it -- Greer didn't want them to have even that opportunity. Yet, the evidence of Terri's consciousness was so compelling that, nevertheless, dozens of doctors came forward and swore that in their professional opinions, based on the evidence available, the PVS diagnosis was flawed. 
* It omits the fact that the autopsy refuted the Cranford/Felos/M.Schiavo contention that she could not have been conscious because her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.
* It omits the fact that the autopsy report gave equal credence to the PVS and MCS hypotheses.
* It puts scare quotes around the MCS diagnosis.
* It includes non-expert GAL (lawyer) opinions in favor of the PVS diagnosis, which is circular, because those opinions were supposedly based on the doctors' opinions (though GAL Wolfson had proven a bias against Terri before his appointment as GAL, by expressing his opinion (on television!) that she should be allowed to die).  Yet it...
* ...omits mention of the sworn testimony of numerous eyewitnesses, corroborated by video recordings of her behavior, that Terri was intermittently responsive to a variety of different stimuli, which is incompatible with a diagnosis of PVS.
The fact is that no doctor who examined Terri without being vetted by M.Schiavo/Felos expressed certainty that she was in a Persistent Vegetative State, and only one such doctor thought it even probable (presumably because he only saw her for 30 minutes; because he had been told, falsely, that she had no remaining cerebral cortex; and because he had no prior experience or special expertise treating or diagnosing PVS patients).
I know that if I fix the article, I'll be instantly reverted, as usual, by one of the M.Schaivo supporters.  But can we all agree, at least, that these problems justify a  warning tag on the article? NCdave 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually your entire premise is fallacious. There is utterly no point in discussing it with you becuause you will then play Whack-a-mole and completely divert the discussion. In any event these subjects and your erroneous interpretation of them have been rebutted many times before. I reverted your NPOV tag. You surrendered any credibilty you might have had in lobbying for it when you earlier asserted that the article is also far from accurate yet you were willing to capitulate your integrity and compromise to solely the NPOV tag. Duckecho 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, my Grandfather served in Casper Wienberger's cabinet, and was the staunchest Republican I've known.  He taught me, "A good compromise is one nobody likes."  So, if you don't like it, maybe that why it's good.  'Cuz we don't either.  Now knock it off.--ghost 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A good Wikipedia article is one that evenhandedly presents both sides of a disputed issue.  This Wikipedia article presents the POV of the pro-Michael/anti-Schindler side of every disputed point.  I have never advocated making the article reflect Terri's family's POV, even though that's the side of the angels.  Rather, I advocate making the article evenhandly and honestly present both sides.  As long as this article does not do that, do not expect me to "knock it off." NCdave 22:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, "the side of the angels"?  I assume you've got statements from actual angels to back up this claim.  If not, spare us the hyperbole.  --JonGwynne 23:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eight doctors examined Schiavo...

message: Talk page archived again (past the 300k mark of doom).  Anything you have to bring back to the main talk page, please just bring back any cogent and relevant bits, rather than a whole section, as some of them are massive in themselves and just going round in circles. Proto 10:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I put the list of archived pages on its own page, as they themselves had got to take up more than a page. Proto 10:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not archive active discussion threads! </font>It is much better to have a large Talk page than it is to interrupt an ongoing discussion. If there have been contributions to a topic in the last few days, then do not archive it. NCdave 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said, Dave, please feel free to bring back anything you feel is still relevant, cogent and has a reason to be on the main talk page.  I have made no judgments of what is or is not viable/relevant.  It is unfeasible and unreasonable to have 350k + of threads active. Proto 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and NCdave will make sure to add something to each thread to keep the seeds of doubt alive for all eternity. FuelWagon 15:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, heh. Although I prefer to think of my posts as more Gettysburg Address–ish (in length, not content), your point is well taken. Duckecho 17:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived