Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 8

message: In the intro, it says
:Michael ordered her feeding tube removed after a Florida court blocked her parents' efforts to prevent the removal.
and
:Michael Schiavo [...] contends that he is carrying out his wife's wishes
I think this is imprecise: the court ordered the removal of the feeding tube, after agreeing with Michael's contention that it would be his wife's wish. The parents appealed and lost. At this point, not even Michael could order the reinsertion of the tube. Legally, the court is the actor, Michael is not. AxelBoldt 19:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Actually it says so in a couple of places further in the article: "Judge Greer ordered ... ", etc. This is an issue that should be given a clear explanation. Journalists make it look as if Michael has the supreme power over the tube, he can order it removed or reinserted at any time, and if he passes guardianship to someone else, that other person will be able to choose to keep Terri alive. There's also a different point of view - that Michael has passed the decision whether to keep her alive to the trial court in 1998, the court decided to 'pull the plug', and Michael does not have any power since then. This seems logical but does not explain why Michael spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers in 1999-2004. I don't know the right answer here.  --Itinerant 19:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael ordered? 

message: Yesterday I inserted the following paragraph into the "various accusations" section:
:A former nurse from Terri's nursing home has filed an affidavit claiming that Michael did not allow any therapy for Terri, was eager to see her die, and even repeatedly injected her with insulin to make that happen. 
User:Astanhope saw fit to delete all of it with the sole comment "Sorry, no". I prefer a more substantial discussion of reverts. 
The  nurse has recently been giving interviews on the Fox News channel, so I think it is a relevant angle of the case. I'm open to more NPOV formulations of the paragraph, for instance including Michael's reaction to the affidavit, if one can be found. AxelBoldt 19:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as this is stated as summarizing an affidavit, and not concluding that it's factual (or not factual), it is NPOV. An affidavit was filed, and that's what it says.... — Bill 19:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you. I remember there was something about the affidavit that was peculiar, for example, which should be included (I'd like to dig up that information, if I recall correctly, there was something unusual about the filing of the affidavit that "altered" it's legal status -- I could be thinking of another incident entirely.) However I'd also like a note that Iyer also never brought up portions of this information in her previous testimony, which is also true. There's alot of strange things going on in this case from all sides, and I think it's worthwhile to point them all out as NPOV as possible. Professor Ninja 22:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a little more background information, also about the other nurse's affidavit:  AxelBoldt 23:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurse's affidavit 

message: Maybe locking the page until she is pronouced dead would be a good idea.  I realize there will still be some maneuvering on Schindler's part but I'd really hate to see this page go to misinformation, libel and/or vandalism in the coming days.
: ??? It's amazing how well-behaved we've all been on both sides of the issue; very little vandalism, if a lot of tweaking. I see no purpose in a lock, although signing one's comments might be nice. — Bill 20:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  /me chuckles.  --Baylink 23:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting a lock 

message: After having read this interview I believe that the unequivocal statement that the vatican has joined the legal fight on the Schindler side is factually wrong and should be removed or altered to reflect the fact that the Vatican is as devided on the issues as everyone else. Preisler 20:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well (no matter how much non-Catholics, an even some Catholics, may be bemused by it), only the Pope, and by proxy, the official Vatican newspaper, the Osservatore Romano, speaks for "the Vatican"; individual Catholics — Jesuit priests or laypersons — do not. If one can trust the news media, an editorial has appeared recently in the Osservatore Romano, condemning the Schiavo killing. I do think, though, that it is factually wrong to say that the Catholic Church is involved in the legal fight, unless it has filed an amicus curiae brief in all this. — Bill 21:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vatican? 

message: Following a flurry of candalism I protected the page. Discuss any change here; I hope that the page can be unprotected as soon as possible. If any significant updates occur, an admin can edit the page. --Neutralitytalk 22:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
There's so many people watching this page that the vandalism gets reverted immediately and protection should not be needed because two anons vandalized the page in the course of one hour. And you've been so heavily involved with this page that you probably should have left that call to a more neutral admin to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. Sorry for the candor. Preisler 23:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that to be a mistake. Many of the non-neutral changes to this article take a lot of work to correct, as apparent from the edit history. I've avoided editing the article beyond replacing the blatantly POV image, because I don't want to continually fight people who obviously don't understand the neutrality policy, or even how to produce neutral sounding text.Gmaxwell 00:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but unfortunately page protection is only authorized in the policy for edit wars or vandalism. It's not for a general concern that the article is not NPOV. The solution for the latter is, well, to edit. Or you could add the neutrality disputed tag and enumerate the issues here in the Talk page. See: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Uses for the policy.  Fuzheado | Talk 01:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And such edits are removed within a couple of hours through a number of revisions... The disputed tag also keeps being removed. :) Gmaxwell 01:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Wanted to add.. I didn't intend to whine.. I understand the policy.. it makes sense, the situation is just unfortunate.  I say the edits are hard to remove because they come in little batches, interspersed with good edits, to fixing them requires going through the paragraphs with a hacksaw, since it's too difficult to point revert bad edits without losing good ones.Gmaxwell 01:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection