Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 16

message: In the light of Terri having died, we should be careful to review past and present tense as used in the article. The argument between the two parties might not have ended when she passed away. Rickyrab | Talk 23:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense, present tense, and Terri's death 

message: I've just removed and then replaced the claim that their name is pronounced /SHY-voe/.  It does look unlikely to me — though Europeans are always cautious when it comes to U.S. pronunciation of names, as almost anything can turn out to be correct (as in the surnames 'Loux' and 'Proulx').  Is there any evidence that this is really how the family pronounces their name?  I've found conflicting evidence on the Web (and see this discussion). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Michael Schiavo says "I'm Michael SHY-VOE".  He says it that way on the news each night. His lawyer pronounces it the same way, on the news. Each and every night. It doesn't matter, really, how Europeans or Americans feel they "ought to" pronounce the name; that's the way he pronounces it.  Commentators have taken various politicians to task for "not bothering" to find out how to pronounce it "correctly" before voting on the bill to have the matter considered in the Federal judiciary. - Nunh-huh 21:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive7#Schiavo_pronunciation for the last discussion about the pronunciation of their name.  The way Michael pronounces his name is the "correct" pronunciation to use when referring to him and his family.  There's currently a note in the article that talks about how the name is pronounced in Italian - I think this should be deleted.  It isn't relevant how someone else with the same name pronounces it.  --Azkar 22:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to my labeling of the CT scan? --Viriditas  | Talk 22:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Someone asked, and I think it's been archived already, how Terri could receive Last Rites without confessing.   Answer here. --Baylink 22:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Rites 

message: The summary of the March 28 New York Times report does not match what the New York Times states, even though the paper's report appears muddled itself concerning "sale" and then "rent". Nevertheless, I did not read "that the Schindlers have compiled a list of people", so I think that should be rewritten. -Wikibob | Talk 02:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
:Unless you are saything that the NYT is lying outright, I think it can be said that since they are selling/renting this list to a direct marketing firm that it was compiled somehow.  Now it may have very well been after the fact, or the list's original purpose may have been to coordinate rescue effots, but I can't see how it's not fair to say "the Schidler's compiled a list of people".--CVaneg 03:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times 

message: I think the current table of contents is a little too large, especially the "recent developments" section (which, incidentally, may need a better title).  Perhaps it should be condensed a bit?  I would do it but thought I'd leave it to people active at this article. violet/riga (t) 14:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some compression on "timeline" section to eliminate subsection "years" from main TOC. This shortened the long TOC pretty much. There is separte manual TOC in section "timeline". --Oblivious 22:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC compression 

message: I've removed two sections from this talk page (see history) because of the rule that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, chatroom or discussion forum.  I appreciate that the rights and wrongs of this affair are matters of great importance to all of us, and I think that those with opinions on the matter should express them.  But not in this talk page, which is solely for discussion of this encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV-bias and inaccuracies of the the Wikipedia article are supposed to be discussed on the Discussion page.  What Tony did was delete the contributions that identified and documented those problems, to enforce his POV.  That is outrageous. NCdave 06:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s removal of two sections from this talk page

message: I overhauled the artiucle in order to correct some pretty ropy grammar, and to bring links, etc., into Wikipedia style.  In the mindless revert wars, my painstaking copy-edits were lost.  I replaced them; they've gone again.  I've better things to do than try to clean up this article against the wishes of other editors.  It looks pretty embarrassingly amateurish in places (e.g., he 'awoke out of bed'), but if you're all happy with that, there's little I can do.  I'll Unwatch it and let you all get on with it. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar, style, & links 

message: The "Recent Developments" section needs refactoring and renaming. Most of it is political or judicial maneuvaring. Perhaps call it "Government Involvment" or something. Not sure how much of it needs to be kept and how much could be whittled down. The parts "burial" and "autopsy" are the only parts directly about Terri and should be extracted to their own sections. FuelWagon 13:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a note to user Neutrality that I am the person who removed the sections of Politicians that he restored earlier today.  I have no problem with the restoration of them, it's just that a shortening of that section was discussed here and I was looking for feedback on the edits I show above, but didn't receive any response.  I figured I'd take some action and changed the section.  It did not seem relevant to me to include in this article the personal decisions that politicians have made re their own families.  I realize (and indeed agree with the notion) that there is hypocrisy involved, but it seemed like the most likely info to hit the chopping block if we are interested in shortening this section.  I just wanted to make it known that it was not inexplicable deletion, was not performed by anons, and was not meant to protect or shelter the politicians that the removed portions referred to.  I apologize if I haven't gone about making my changes in the proper fashion, Neutrality.  Should I have waited longer for feedback in here before pruning that section?  Thanks for your input.  I'm waaaay new 'round these parts  (:--Minaflorida 22:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Fuel, it looks like you did a pretty good job with the political section.  Nice work!--69.68.30.101 01:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent developments need rename