Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 25

message: * 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)
replies: text: Baylink & Fox1, an anonymous person deleted your comments, but I saw them in the diff:  No, I'm not a doctor, but I am one of many voices, which collectively add up to being noteworthy of mentioned on Wiki. Also, my roles in the Schiavo saga was unique, and more than Joe Average Citizen's role, who wants to know what happened and depends on Wiki. Also, Fox, I'll try not to be too talkitive on the talk page. To the anonymous person having trouble seeing the recent entries, click on the "history" tab above and then click on the "last" tabs to see what was recently added. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: :Well, that's awkward…a period is badly needed here. In any event, the two and a half month coma and the period of last 15 years as I understand it are not in dispute by anyone. Diagnosis of PVS I understand to be a subject of discussion, but those who dispute it are compelled to accept one thing: the court held a trial, accepted testimony from witnesses, and as judges are charged to do, made a decision based on the evidence that the diagnosis of PVS was correct. That ruling was upheld in a number of courts. That process is a fundamental part of our legal system. The finding by the court of PVS is a legal fact, however incorrect some people (including doctors) feel it to be. Moreover, that process is explained in the succeeding sentences, and just can't be dismissed without POV. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: She went into a coma for two and a half months and spent the last 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS), 

message: :That sentence can't be any more neutral or factual. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Schiavo's medical diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state was a source of major dispute between her parents (Bob and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, Schiavo's legal guardian. 

message: :I don't see this statement as anything but neutral. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This dispute led to numerous court cases over the course of several years.

message: :A matter of public record and therefore NPOV. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of place (see above discussion of "eight physicians...") NCdave 18:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two guardians ad litem concurred with this decision. 

message: :A matter of public record, however, I find the mention of the Schindlers in this to be POV. I understand that partisans on both sides of the issue would want to identify Michael or the Schindlers for a variety of reasons, but in stating the facts of the case, does it matter who selected the doctors? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous sentence explicitely states who selected the doctors that diagnosed Terri as PVS (two by michael, three appointed by court). This is simply a continuation of indicating the source of the doctors selection. FuelWagon 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reedited to reflect that. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The two remaining examining doctors (both selected by Schiavo's parents) disagreed that Shiavo was in a PVS. 

message: :I don't see anything to argue about in that sentence. Agreed? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Schiavo contends that he carried out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in a state such as a persistent vegetative state. 

message: :Can't possibly be an argument there, can there? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This became another source of major dispute between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers. 

message: :Indisputable, correct? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mrs. Schiavo had no living will, and both sides brought their case before the courts. 

message: :Is vigorously POV? Didn't all parties vigorously pursue their points? Did one party litigate more vigorously than the other? I think that's a biasing word and should be stricken, agreed? However, it's presence does not merit a POV tag. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you took vigourously out. could you put something in that at least indicates multiple appeals, multiple cases, multiple motions, etc? Otherwise, it says they appealed (assuming once) and that it led to the removal of Terri's feeding tube three times. the math doesn't add up. FuelWagon 02:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think it does assume that. For example, in the second paragraph it says, "[t]he dispute led to numerous court cases...", in the third paragraph it says, "...both sides brought their case before the courts...", followed by "...appealed the judicial decisions...",  and further, the mention of two reinsertions and a third disconnection. It seems to me that the idea of multiple filings is clearly represented. But I'm not so wedded to this portion of the edit as I am to the others. However, if it really annoys you, how about Mrs. Schiavo's parents...filed numerous (or multiple) appeals of the judicial decisions... Duckecho 03:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it. Lemme sit on it a couple days. If it still bothers me, I'll bring it up. I'm getting an ulcer. FuelWagon 03:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, vigorously appealed the judicial decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube on two separate occasions after its removal. 

message: :Is there any dispute or lack of neutrality in this sentence? Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The courts all ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband, and the feeding tube was removed a third and final time. 

message: :I don't see how one could argue with these two facts, and the second can be modified with some detail once the facts in the medical examiner's report become available. Duckecho 16:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any possible argument or POV with these first three paragraphs (apart from any I've identified)? Please enumerate, one by one, with facts and cites if you don't agree. Please indent and sign your comments for clarity.Duckecho 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm prepared to do the next section of the article this same way. I'll wait a couple of days so as not to overwhelm casual readers with a ton of new material. Unless there is objection to this methodology, of course. Duckecho 18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait to see if this approach solves anything before starting the next section. FuelWagon 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your efforts, Duckecho.  This will take a long time, but could be very helpful.  Ann Heneghan 21:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An autopsy has been performed, but the results have not yet been released.

message: It's nice that you're doing a sentence-by-sentence exposure to get people to realize that this article is pretty NPOV, but could we also work on trimming down the first few paragraphs?  The huge block of text in the first section is almost unreadable.... there's just too much information for an introduction, and not enough indication of why we need to know all this information up front.  Moncrief 21:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
:I wrote the intro to contain more summary information because the article as a whole is a behomouth. If someone wants to get the gist of what the heck happened to Terri, they shouldn't have to wade through gobs and gobs of minutia. Most of the minutia is there because folks complain about something being left out is hiding the fact that Michael wanted to murder Terri or some such nonsense. If the article were trimmed down, then I'd say cut the intro down to one paragraph. But as long as the article is going to go into endless, mind-numbing detail, then I'd say to make the intro have enough context about Terri so they have some context to put the rest of the article in. FuelWagon 00:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The opening section is much too long

message: Here is my attempt at editing the opening section. All of the points that everyone seems to want to be made that I excised from this opening section are still covered in depth (or should be in subsequent edits) later in the article. 
:Theresa Marie Schiavo (IPA: )(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), or Terri , was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1990, she suffered brain damage from cerebral hypoxia following bulimia-induced cardiac arrest. She went into a coma for two and a half months and spent the last 15 years of her life in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because Ms. Schiavo had no living will, ultimately the court determined that she would not wish to be kept on life support in such a state.
:The judicial and legislative battles between Michael Schiavo (Ms. Schiavo's legal guardian) and her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, over the diagnosis of PVS, removal of life support (gastric feeding tube), and other aspects of Schiavo's circumstances generated tremendous media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.  Once appeals had been exhausted, the feeding tube was removed  on March 18, 2005, even as the Schindlers continued to pursue their dispute to Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush, and the mass media. Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005.  
Your comments and suggestions welcome. Duckecho 01:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the entire intro? See, this is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid would happen. We're chasing our tail once again. This rewrite is far different from the version that everyone commented on above, and yet there are only a few points that people disputed. If you completely rewrite the intro, then there will be a whole other list of disputes that will come up because of the changes. Could we keep the intro as close as possible to the way it is and only change stuff to fix problems that people identify as POV? Otherwise, we'll end up going through this new intro on a sentence by sentence basis and end up with another version after that. No offence meant to you duck, I'm just too cynical at this point to believe we'll ever hit a point where everyone is happy with the article or the intro, which means we have to put up with some partisans being completely irate at the way the article is worded. FuelWagon 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was the entire into. I give up. In the sentence-by-sentence analysis, the sole comments consisted of a complaint about bulimia (rebutted with cites), a complaint about the date format (sheesh; rebutted), and a complaint about our 200+ year old system of justice (rebutted). Finally, there was a separate complaint about the intro being too long. Granted, some of our heaviest hitting gadflies never weighed in, so we don't know just exactly how irritated they are with it as it exists. Aside from the occasional POV complaint from the you-know-whos, the only other bitches I see are about bloat, length, and readibility (essentially based on bloat). So what's your idea? Leave it as is? Does the article as it exists meet your standard of a wikipedia finished product? Duckecho 14:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duck, the thing is that the individuals who keep putting the POV tag on the article never have anything specific to point to. NCdave gave a laundry list above, but I replied to each, and most of his stuff comes down to the fact that he wants to rewrite wikipedia in the POV of blogsforterri or similar. That isn't wikipedia's job. As an example, the three-dozen doctors who watched video from teh Schindlers and signed affidavits saying Terri should get more testing doesn't deserve to be presented out of context. That sort of information needs to be provided in the context of 5 hours of video edited by the Schindlers down to 5 minutes of video and shown to doctors. You can't simply say three-dozen doctors disputed the court's ruling and bury the full story deep down in the article. ya know, important little tidbits like "they didn't actually examine terri". That's what certain individuals want to do. You can't let people putting the POV tag on the article wear you down to the point where you're changing the article based on vague, non-specific complaints, in hopes that they'll be happy. They won't. You've got to demand they present specific POV problems in specific parts of the article and you've got to demand that they present URL's to back it up, preferably a URL to a non-blog source. Otherwise they're simply complaining that the article hasn't been written with the same viewpoint that they see in blogsforterri. And nothing can change that unless wikipedia changes its purpose from facts to advocacy. FuelWagon 16:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordo, you're a confirmed ingnoramous now. That isn't what I said at all, so stop trying to turn my words into something else. The schindler's laundry list of "remote-video-diagnosis" is crap. It doesn't deserve to be in the intro. It deserves to be put in the article alongside other complete crap like Iyer's affidavit that the Schindlers submitted. They had a trial to diagnose Terri. They lost. Then they get Industrial Light and Magic to create a 5 minute video clip of Terri from 5 hours of raw footage and show that to a bunch of doctors in an attempt to completely RE-TRY the case. THEY LOST. And those MTV doctors was irrelevant enough that it did not warrant a new trial. Therefore they do not belong in the intro. See, that's your problem. you can't understand what it means to LOSE in court. You lost and keep spouting off about how it was a "near win". The Schindlers lost and kept trying to get a new trial with bogus evidence and bogus affidavits. fortunately the courts did their job and didn't allow Terri's condition to get tried, retried, and tried again. That's what courts are supposed to do. FuelWagon 15:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Gordo, take a look at the title of this section: how about this for an opener? Unless you're talking about the intro to the article, you're conveniently changing the subject of this thread. The MTV diagnosis does not deserve to be in the intro. Their diagnosis is already in the article with sufficient context around it to explain the Industrial Light and Magic editing that went on. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess I overlooked the title of the article, but it is enough that I think it is OK to let the other doctors' analyses remain in the body. By the way: The law is quite clear on what PVS is, and your opinion -or even some judge's opinion, does not change the law. When you differ, it is merely an opinion, but when a judge differs, it is "legislating from the bench:" , , & . This is unconstitutional, as a violation of the seperation of powers. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: "you imply that it is a hoax, but this is irrelevant: You and I aren't the court;" Well the court dismissed the affidavits, specifically because the basis for their diagnosis was 5 minutes of video and information from news stories. so that seems to be safe to call them a hoax. insert whatever legal term you wish that means the same thing as "useless diagnosis based on doctored video" that you find appropriate. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That term is heresay.  Which has no place in the courts.  And, as a minority opinion, has little or no place in Wikipedia.  We could mention the existence of that the affidavits (possibly with a link), mention the judgement on them, and provide a link to the case.  Otherwise, kill the whole reference.  Which some will find unexceptable.  So either state the facts, provide links and shut up, or don't say anything.  Let the readers decide for themselves.--ghost 21:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This section is about what goes into the intro of the article. I said the MTV diagnosis doesn't belong in the intro. You said you agree with me "that it should be mentioned" that the doctors didn't examine Terri for very long or at all. I said it shouldn't be mentioned at all. And since this discusion is about "how about this for an INTRO", you're either changing the subject of the thread or you're saying that I said it should be included in the intro. The MTV diagnosis is already in the article body, so I don't know why you would argue that it "should be mentioned" in the body of the article when it already is there. So, you either changed the subject of the thread from "intro" to "whole article", or you misrepresented my words to say it should be in the intro. FuelWagon 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're preaching to the choir. I've been in on this since around the 1st of April (although not always with this username), and I've experienced in real time the nuttyness that has occured. I'm fully on board with you on all you say above, maybe even more so in some cases. I was responding to what seemed like a reasonable concern about the size of the intro. Frankly, I think the concern is well taken. But given the comment below, perhaps sizewise, it's not so bad. I do think it goes into some more detail than is desirable in an intro. I don't care what NCdave thinks. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As for whether the article meets my "standard of a wikipedia finished product", I'd say no. The intro is pretty good as far as I can see. Yes, it's a little long, but the article is much longer. The article as a whole doesn't meet my standard of a finished product. There are some bits here and there that have been put in to satisfy NCdave and other extremists. NCdave's infatuation with Greer's denial of the Schindlers motion to feed terri by "natural means" lead to a whole new subsection in the article to explain that motion as well as the pieces before and after it. The motion was nonsense and Greer threw it out, but NCdave insists that the article is POV unless it mentions it. So it's in there. Same goes for the section devoted to Iyer's affidavit. Her affidavit is a complete fabrication, Greer rules it as such, but NCdave kept harping on it in the talk page, so I gave a bit by bit analysis to put the affidavit in context and explain how Greer came to the ruling he did. This kind of crap is what makes the article so long. But if someone has been brainwashed by blogsforterri and they come over to wikipedia thinking that Michael abused Terri, wanted her dead to keep her from testifying, wanted her lawsuit money for himself, that Greer is in on the conspiracy, and that Felos is a lawyer mercenary, then it's probably good that the article has these pieces of mythology explained in detail and put into proper context. This also means that the brainwashed Don Quixotes who refuse to see a windmill will continue to pound on the article for being POV because it doesn't tell the "truth" of murder, deception, and cat-icide. I've come to teh realization that these morons simply need to be resisted because nothing but a complete rewrite of the article to hang michael will satisfy them. FuelWagon 16:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the court order is quite specific regarding the "natural means" feeding but I don't think the reasoning explained therein is well reflected in the article. Obviously, NCdave has never read it, because if he had he'd never raise the issue. Jeez, that must be a wonderful life to float along in complete ignorance, never having to face a real fact head on. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: In response to the introduction being too long comment, Wikipedia:Lead section recommends that, for an article >30K, the lead section should be three paragraphs.  So, it's not too long right now.  I also tend to agree with FuelWagon that this is going to re-open up more cans of worms; I can see some old debates that we've had being re-opened if this were the introduction.  JYolkowski // talk 16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, consider the proposal withdrawn. Duckecho 18:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, boys and girls; how about this for an opener? 

message: I've archived all conversation threads that haven't been touched in the last 7 days, because it was making my computer cry having to load 322 kb every time. Proto 14:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. My eight year old computer was wheezing towards its last legs processing all of it, and my dialup connection didn't help, either. Duckecho 15:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  archived 

message: Here's another one that I'd like to see put to bed. I'm not sure what the staffing levels have been over the years at the various institutions in which Terri Schiavo resided, but at the very least, I believe it takes seven people to provide 24/7 shift coverage (I used to do scheduling occasionally when I was with the FAA). Now, theoretically, there could have been a maximum of seven health care providers that travelled with Terri on her journey from 1990 until 2005, but I think even the most avid detractors would concede that there have more likely been dozens, if not hundreds, of health care professionals that have been involved with her over the years. 
I said all of that to say this: if any of the allegations in the Iyer affidavit were true, is it not reasonable to conclude that out of the dozens or hundreds of others that have been involved in her care, there had to be corroborating charges? There were a total of four similar affidavits. NCdave likes to speak of Michael Schiavo mysteriously remembering Terri's wishes, but I have to wonder about Carla Iyer (and three cohorts) mysteriously appearing in 2001 to make allegations of events from six years earlier. I also have to wonder why the Schindlers did not bring them to court for the 2000 and 2002 trials. That shortcoming was cited in at least one of the court orders in those trials. 
In the article, Greer's denouncing of Iyer's affidavit is quoted (and is damning). This cite should be added and as I stated above, all should read it who haven't in order to get a more accurate flavor of what was said and done (and ordered) than is reported in the blogosphere. CO of 17 September 2003 Duckecho 02:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lies were told about nurse Iyer, not by her.  She is a highly credible witness, with no conflict of interest, and no reason to lie.  According to the sworn testimony of two witnesses, Michael Schiavo repeatedly said that he had no idea what Terri would want, during the early years after her injury.  During the 1992 malpractice trial, he stated that it was his intent to take care of her in her disabled state for the rest of his life -- no suggestion that she wouldn't want such care.  It was eight years before he ever told anyone that she had ever suggested that she would rather be dead than live like that.  GAL Pearse thought he was lying, and so do I.  He had more than a half million dollar motive to lie about it.  He is not credible.  Iyer is. NCdave 22:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Watts:  I responded to the Traffic Court comment on your talk page, I hope you do not mind.--Mia-Cle 00:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it; Thx, Miami-Cleveland, -and I replied with specific answers to your question(s) and/or comment(s).--GordonWattsDotCom 12:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The liar Iyer affidavit 

message: Since I see the sand bowl blowing, I'll make a sandbox to try to have a place to address the wind storm:
EXCESS QUANTITY: First, I may have been a little at fault of the "excess quantity" of clutter for being long-winded, but 1,000,000 questions (by duck and others) deserve 1,000,000 answers that are detailed.
"Quality:" As far quality of a few remarks I made, YES, they were directed at Duck who asked, and theists, in general who might find them helpful. To that end, they were a little clutter, but I limited my Biblical Canonical comments, so don't worry about that.
General Recommendations: If Duck or others think that the board is cluttered, remember!! --cyberspace is rather limitless: We could each have our own sub-header --or our OWN PAGE, for that matters. So, his idea of a sandbox is not a bad idea.
Yes, there were some attacking comments, like that 25% figure, and that vandalism comment, that looked like they were aimed in my direction. However, I think that if we all strive to make (a) Brief (b) Polite and (c) On-topic replies, this will subside. (Proof of that theorem is the fact that such comments of sandbox creation have not been surfaced in recent times; The human DNA is strong enough to permit rational logic and cool heads, trust me: That was my specialty at FSU.)
Now, my only objections to sandbox activity would be that it would tend to confuse editors who want to go looking for something on the talk page. ("Huh? Why's that here?" -sort of thing.) Also, there is the possibility that posts could be accidentally deleted -or duplicated. So, instead of moving someone else's post, sometimes it's best to run to a less populated place. I forgot to mention: While I was certainly annoyed by some comments, I'm not mad at you, Duck, or anyone, for that matter --at least not here on these pages and boards. You can trust that, for all my opinions and views, I am not easily offended, so don't even sweat it for a second.
Notice here that I am "practicing what I preach." I have run to a less-populated place --AND (more importantly), I DON'T tamper with or disturb (read: delete) others' posts -no matter how much I might dislike their illogical point of view. NEWS FLASH: I survived the posts that others posted, and so can you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox - general reccomendations & suggestions 

message: I created a subpage to make a sandbox.  Terri Schiavo/sandbox.  I took the liberty of doing my own restructure of the article to better follow the timeline, as others had suggested.  There were a few redundancies that could then be removed.  The ToC makes a LOT more sense in this version.  Thoughts?--ghost 21:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox created

message: === Opening paragraph (Name structure) ===
My feelings about the structure of Terri's name in the opening paragraph are probably well known. Proto and I are engaged in a civil revert war (really; civil—see our talk pages) over the final solution. I cited several examples from WikipediA supporting my choice and he cited a couple supporting his (of course he's a Brit, so we can't count on his English being correct—that's a joke, Ann—and it is, after all, an American woman). I suggested to him that I would put it to the group, so here it is. Which do you prefer?:
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates) 
or
Theresa "Terri" Marie Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates)
:I vote putting "Terri" right after "Theresa". FuelWagon 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is who my wife, also a Terri, prefers her proper name be written as well.--ghost 20:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: with all due respect, the nickname goes after the 1st & middle names. Example: John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush" This spelling gets 7,780 hits in google:  and 1,270 hits in Yahoo: . Yet, to ask the search engines for "John 'Jeb' Ellis Bush" yields THIS result: ONE hit in google:  one like two hits in Yahoo: . The only exceptions might be if the nickname went in front, like "Flash" Gordon Wayne Watts (me). I don't care either way, as it doesn't hart or help me directly, but in fairness to the reader, the numbers support my hypostasis: First Middle "Nick Name" Last. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: One other idea that Proto brings up in this diff  is not a bad idea: He suggests: "Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo" --but what about her maiden name? How about: "Terri Schiavo was born "Theresa Marie Schindler?" That is certainly more Americanized than, say, Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo nee Schindler, although the latter is technically correct. Look -let's just vote on one and stick with it; it's no bigh deal. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry for overlooking it; I carelessly thought it was still under consideration.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have a cite that she, in fact, did change it legally, I wouldn't have a bit of problem with it being written that way. But I wouldn't support its inclusion based on speculation that she might have. Moreover, "Terri Schiavo" is the name of the article. Seems to me that should cover all the bases.Also, I've never seen a nickname precede any given name (Bobby Riggs is an example). And the "born Theresa Maria Schindler" is already (and has been for some time) appropriately placed in the Early Life section, just as other Wiki articles do with married women (Olympia Snowe, for example) or actors who have taken other names {Marilyn Monroe, for example). There's no need to further bloat the opening paragraph with the complete maiden name. Duckecho 23:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Get specific or get stuffed

message: My feelings about the structure of Terri's name in the opening paragraph are probably well known. Proto and I are engaged in a civil revert war (really; civil—see our talk pages) over the final solution. I cited several examples from WikipediA supporting my choice and he cited a couple supporting his (of course he's a Brit, so we can't count on his English being correct—that's a joke, Ann—and it is, after all, an American woman). I suggested to him that I would put it to the group, so here it is. Which do you prefer?:
Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates) 
or
Theresa "Terri" Marie Schiavo (followed by the IPA stuff and dates)
:I vote putting "Terri" right after "Theresa". FuelWagon 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This is who my wife, also a Terri, prefers her proper name be written as well.--ghost 20:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: with all due respect, the nickname goes after the 1st & middle names. Example: John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush" This spelling gets 7,780 hits in google:  and 1,270 hits in Yahoo: . Yet, to ask the search engines for "John 'Jeb' Ellis Bush" yields THIS result: ONE hit in google:  one like two hits in Yahoo: . The only exceptions might be if the nickname went in front, like "Flash" Gordon Wayne Watts (me). I don't care either way, as it doesn't hart or help me directly, but in fairness to the reader, the numbers support my hypostasis: First Middle "Nick Name" Last. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: One other idea that Proto brings up in this diff  is not a bad idea: He suggests: "Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo" --but what about her maiden name? How about: "Terri Schiavo was born "Theresa Marie Schindler?" That is certainly more Americanized than, say, Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo nee Schindler, although the latter is technically correct. Look -let's just vote on one and stick with it; it's no bigh deal. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry for overlooking it; I carelessly thought it was still under consideration.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have a cite that she, in fact, did change it legally, I wouldn't have a bit of problem with it being written that way. But I wouldn't support its inclusion based on speculation that she might have. Moreover, "Terri Schiavo" is the name of the article. Seems to me that should cover all the bases.Also, I've never seen a nickname precede any given name (Bobby Riggs is an example). And the "born Theresa Maria Schindler" is already (and has been for some time) appropriately placed in the Early Life section, just as other Wiki articles do with married women (Olympia Snowe, for example) or actors who have taken other names {Marilyn Monroe, for example). There's no need to further bloat the opening paragraph with the complete maiden name. Duckecho 23:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph (Name structure) 

message: I went in and remarked out the links that were dead, missing, or required registration. The New York Times link had in the description that it required registration. Does Wiki (or do we) have a policy regarding links that require registration? In the event that it's not found to be problematic, I'll be happy to revert the ones that aren't dead or missing, which is why I remarked them out rather than just deleting them (enough double negatives in that sentence?). Duckecho 04:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To all: I fixed spelling errors galore a moment ago. See edit summaries.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I saw your comment in the edit summary, and was about to reply. I don't know of a formal policy, but check out THIS Wiki policy: . It does not mention what to do with bad links, and common sense is telling me that a bad link doesn't belong. You did the right thing in keeping in the links but blanking them out from public view. This way, an editor can research the web and find "good" links which cover the same subject of the bad links -so the item or subject remains documented with a link of some sort. Let me add that problems like this are a chief reason editors should always strive to put in a mirror links, in case the main link is not working. (Old Fashioned / Old School theorem: Don't put all your eggs (or links) in one basket.--GordonWattsDotCom (UTC) 04:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources section 

message: I saw the debate in commentary  but see no debate on talk page. I think it is noble and honorable that Duck would defend removal of the comment about Hammesfahr, as possibly being POV for singling him out, since he has stated (or at least I inferred) that he trusts the courts' decisions. As a "pro-Life" person, I am please that he is not singled out, but in all fairness, the article could mention that he was accused of making false "nobel Prize Nomination" claims (not unlike the criticism I've received over my own comments about MY perceived achievements). However, in all fairness, it might not be right to single him out --if you want to mention him, Viriditas, you might see if you can mention him in the context --that is, along with other doctors who were denounced by the trial judge. I'm still not sure where the Nobel Nominee accusation belongs, but I'm sure it can be squeezed in somewhere.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Split the paragraph, which needed it anyway. Kept a comment about H's testimony but put it in the appropriate spot. One can't help but see the POV in including it. Respond in Talk." (quoting Duck in edit comments) After all your ranting and raving above and below, your edit, , removed the POV comment and seems OK to me. Discussion about the Nobel nomination controversy could safely be placed lower in the article dealing with "disputed issues," if you like.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "singling out Hammesfahr" POV debate / and <span style="color: #ff0000;"><u>'''Duck's'''</u></span> <span style="color: #990000;">complaints addressed</span>

message: I added some links to this section as there were some heretofore unsubstantiated quotes, and I also added the link to the Congressional subpoena issued to Mickael and Terri. The article mentioned two hearings (which I temp-edited to one—the original plural form is remarked out). There was only one (set of) subpoena that I found and since I may not be the best web searcher, I've not been able to find any references to other hearings. Anyone know the genesis of the number of hearings question? Also, although I did find a couple of sources for Greer's discussion with Congressional leaders, I haven't found anything documenting their decision not to pursue contempt proceedings. Anyone have anything on Congress letting the contempt issue wither away? Duckecho 18:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional subpoenas (subpoenae?)

message: In looking around for links I've had to visit some blogs and I discovered something interesting. Based on the data in the discharge summary, a great many (and who knows where it started) places proclaim that Terri couldn't have had a heart attack because it states, "...EKG's...did not show any evidence of myocardial infarction." Also, "[s]erial CPK and other enzymes did not reval evidence of myocardial infarction." And principal diagnosis was "cardiac arrest." There are a great many lay people (including many lawyers) who see that as oxymoronic since they equate cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and heart attack as all synonomous. They are not. Myocardial infarction is popularly known as a heart attack, but they are not the same as cardiac arrest (although cardiac arrest is often a consequence of an MI). I believe that misconception has led to at least one area of unrest in the blogosphere. This note won't help there, but it may help here. Duckecho 02:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Archimedes moment (eureka!) 

message: Wow! I take a few days off, and look at the length of this talk page. Time to archive it.
Before we archive it, let me point out a couple things. First, I have taken pot-shots at Abstract Appeal, but check out this funny quote, from Attorney Matt Conigliaro, the webmaster of this legal blog:
::Another motion resolved last week was the Schindlers' motion to permit Terri to be given food and water orally once the feeding tube is discontinued. You can read that motion here from the Terri's Fight site. The motion included the following lines:
::::Discontinuing her "artificial life support" in the form of assisted feeding should not also automatically sentence her to death. Instead, Terri should be permitted to attempt to eat and drink by natural means. Ill people often get well, or at least get better. The opportunity to attempt to feed Terri by natural means may demonstrate Terri is able to swallow and to eat and drink naturally.
::In denying this motion, Judge Greer stated wrote that the motion appeared to ask for an experimental procedure and that the documents provided in support of this motion were the same ones provided with another motion based on new medical evidence. The court ruled that this motion was thus duplicative and that whether new tests should be conducted will stand or fall with the other pending motion. You can read the order here.
::Frankly, that ruling surprised me. I had read the motion as a request that she be given food, as any person in a medical care setting might, even if her feeding tube is removed. The language quoted above, though, does make the motion seem as if the request is actually for a form of therapy, rather than as a basic human right.
::Source: ...posted by Matt Conigliaro   ⊥   9:08 AM   ⊥   # Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at:  See also:  or: 
The attorney (a hero to many on this board, he heh), says: "Frankly, that ruling surprised me." Well, I think it should have: It surprised me too -because the judge plainly committed a felony & flatly violated chapter 825.102(3), as I have quoted before:  He goes on to give his legal analysis: "I had read the motion as a request that she be given food, as any person in a medical care setting might, even if her feeding tube is removed. The language quoted above, though, does make the motion seem as if the request is actually for a form of therapy, rather than as a basic human right." Bingo! I had read the motion in much the same way, Atty. Conigliaro. Last time I checked, eating food is a human right.
Even though the good attorney didn't mention that the judge violated the law, he showed that he was less biased that I had previously thought. Hmm...? It appears the that attorney and I can read the motion and understand it better than the judge, who plainly could not see (and/or did not want to admit) that the motion for food was just that -and nothing more, and certainly not some "hypothetical" or "theoritical" experimental medical treatment. It's food, for God's sake, and when I'm hungry, I want food -not "medical treatment."
My other point is that I would like to revisit the idea of others using soft pastel colors. Since surely not all would consent, the few who did would make the board more readable and not all mixed up. For those of you who need help with colors, simply look at the Wiki code of how I do it, and you can copy me and modify it to your tastes. This is entirely optional. OK, I hope I've contributed. Let's review note, get a consensus, and then archive this monster. I commit to try to talk less in the future in "talk" pages, if that will help.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before we archive this one: Proof that Abstract Appeal is LESS biased than my prior estimate