| Revision as of 02:05, 10 August 2005 editGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 editsm →Distinguishing one dispute from another: correction← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:33, 23 November 2024 edit undo70.95.34.174 (talk) →Poll saying majority of Americans thought Michael Schiavo had the authority?: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{merged-from|Schiavo memo|17 April 2022}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{comment|For those who have agreed to '''Mediation''', there is an enclave set aside for your use at ].}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{TOCcenter}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=2005-04-25, 09:35:23 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=Reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=12791796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
The '''archives''' of the Terri Schiavo Talk page may be found here (currently 29 archives): ] |
|
|
|
|action2date=2005-06-06, 10:36:09 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive2 |
|
|
|action2result=Reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=14812474 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
== "End of life" == |
|
|
|
|action3date=2005-08-26, 11:41:50 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive3 |
|
|
|action3result=Reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid=21872497 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
It was debated earlier but seems to have returned: inaccurate terminology with respect to "end of life". Usage of this term presumes that in some sense Terri was at "end of life" in 1990 or prior to 2005. The more accurate (and frankly more neutral) terms to use here are "medical choices for the incapacitated" or "health care proxy". ] 20:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date=2005-09-03, 15:05:07 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=Failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=22404082 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
|
|action5date=2005-09-11, 12:54:39 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2 |
|
|
|action5result=Failed |
|
|
|action5oldid=22986120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAC |
|
:First paragraph of the says: |
|
|
|
|action6date=2005-10-04, 10:57:45 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3 |
|
|
|action6result=Failed |
|
|
|action6oldid=24704223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
::''"The court has carefully reviewed its notes, the transcribed testimony of those non-parties who testified to conversations with Terri Schiavo regarding end of life declaraions, the report of Guardian Ad Litem..."'' |
|
|
|
|action7date=2005-12-12, 08:55:30 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive4 |
|
|
|action7result=Failed |
|
|
|action7oldid=30979770 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=GAN |
|
:So, "end of life" seems to be grounded in legal documents. ] 22:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8date=2006-11-18, 02:01:14 |
|
|
|action8result=listed |
|
|
|action8oldid=88538030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=PR |
|
::That's interesting. I'll see if there's a document or analysis disputing the Greer's application of the label ''"end of life"'' or at least show that it's usage applied to the Schiavo case to be controversial. A great deal of the order refers to the Browning precedent which applies to medical decisions for the incompetent/incapacitated. ] 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=02:22, 27 March 2009 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Terri Schiavo case/archive1 |
|
|
|action9result=reviewed |
|
|
|action9oldid=279927735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=FAC |
|
== sic == |
|
|
|
|action10date=20:07, 2 April 2009 |
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive1 |
|
|
|action10result=not promoted |
|
|
|action10oldid=281350083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAR |
|
The use of "sic" to describe a spelling transcription error in oral testimony is not appropriate, both in a legal and a journalistic sense. The testimony did not include the misspelling, and, as such, "thus" is not an appropriate term to describe it.] 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (late sig) |
|
|
|
|action11date=19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action11link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1 |
|
|
|action11result=delisted |
|
|
|action11oldid=349303964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=GAN |
|
:You refer to this diff. |
|
|
|
|action12date=06:16, 30 September 2011 |
|
|
|action12link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA2 |
|
|
|action12result=not listed |
|
|
|action12oldid=452886452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAN |
|
:<font color=000099>Hello, Hipocrite - you did not sign, so here is your signature from the history: '''18:09, 4 August 2005 Hipocrite (sic)'''</font> |
|
|
|
|action13date=20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|action13link=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA3 |
|
|
|action13result=listed |
|
|
|action13oldid=527902817 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
:<font color=000099>First, I think it ''is'' appropriate, because we're not quoting the testimony, but, instead, quoting the page in question (which, parenthetically, but not importantly, quotes the testimony).</font> |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action14=FAC |
|
:<font color=000099>However, I was about to change your problem, and put the "" back in -and put a space between the sic and the word described, but I found a LARGER problem: When I went to the purple kangaroo link and did an "Edit-->Find on this page" search, I could NOT find the phrase, that is, the exact quote -there were lots of things, but no exact quote.</font> |
|
|
|
|action14date=2017-04-22 |
|
|
|action14link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo case/archive2 |
|
|
|action14result=failed |
|
|
|action14oldid=775863954 |
|
|
|otd1date=2012-03-18|otd1oldid=482582896 |
|
|
|otd2date=2015-03-18|otd2oldid=651758296 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|living=no|listas=Schiavo, Terri|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low|society=yes|society-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|ethics=yes|social=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tampa Bay }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Florida|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 52 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive index|mask=Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
:<font color=000099>So, I issue this <font color=ff0000 size=4><strong><u>Red Alert</u></strong></font> "Heads Up."--] 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A custom index of the '''archives''' for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at ] with a general description of each archive's contents. |
|
::Apologies on the failure to sign. The phrase is, in fact, in the transcript. The quote, however, is not from the transcript - in fact, it is attributed to "When asked why, he explained." Said explanation was given orally, and, as such, could not be mispelled. The error was not in the source, which is what "sic" - "thus" means. What is the reason to leave a transcription error in an verbal quote? ] 19:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== other neurologists (removed from "initial medical" paragraph) == |
|
:::<font color=000099>No problemo - apology accepted. I see you also changed the title back. Maybe I should tone down to a <font color=666600>'''Yellow''' Alert</font>, huh? OK, I see you say the phrase is in the transcript, but I could not find it -spelled either way; What line is it? If you cite a line, I shall hope to scroll down to said line and look for it by exact location. NOW, on the error question, if you say the ''original'' transcript has no error, then why no cite ''this'' version, and link to it? Is the link unavailable? '''''CAVEAT:''''' I ask a bunch of questions here; please don't forget one for the sake of the other; if you're able, I'd appreciate answers on all my points. Thx,--] 19:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.<ref>{{cite journal |
|
:::*Here is where you can piece together the quote: pg 28 ln 1 "Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how" pg 28 ln 2 "to take care of Terry."... |
|
|
|
| title= Facts, Lies, & Videotapes: The Permanent Vegetative State and the Sad Case of Terri Schiavo. |
|
|
| author = Cranford, Ronald | publisher = J Law Med Ethics. |
|
|
| url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16083094?dopt=Abstract |
|
|
| date = 2005-07-01 | accessdate = 2006-01-17}};33(2):363-71</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead section rewrite == |
|
::::pg 28 ln6 "I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking" ln 7 "care of my wife." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at ]. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--] (]) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
::::pg 28 ln9 "I want to bring my wife home." |
|
|
|
:Do you believe someone who thinks an eating disorder makes you a "stupid, destructive and evil person" who deserves to experience severe health consequences of that illness is a prime candidate for rewriting this article? ]] 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:You would benefit from taking the existing advice from 7-8 July in the article history where multiple users already highlighted the ] and ] language in your preferred lead, like "as is typical", "endured wave after wave", "memorialized his fidelity", etc. I fail to see how your proposed revisions improve the current lead, notwithstanding the unconvincing assertion of a "right to lifer" bias. --] (]) 23:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar == |
|
::::pg 29 ln1 "I" ln 2 "married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the" ln 3 "rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], why did you revert the edit? This is how I know it in English grammar. "Low" in the original sentence acts as a noun. Therefore, it cannot have an adverb modifying it. Adverbs only modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs as far as I know. It also would make "an" obsolete as what follows it isn't a noun or noun phrase. My revision changes "low" to an adjective and therefore, having "abnormally" before it makes it grammatically correct and does not at all affect the original message. Why then would you revert it? — ] (]) 22:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::* I am not commenting on the transcript, which is clearly in error - it uses Terry throughout. If we were talking ''about the transcript'' then I would want it littered with "sic." We are not, however, talking about the transcript - rather, we're talking about what he said, and he said teari(Brooklyn) or teerrye(Irish), or teahrii(English), or tereuh(Georgia). However, when we quote people, we correct their spellings, because you can't tell the spelling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"low" was not a noun, it was an adjective, and your change messes up the flow. ] (]) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
:::* I believe that handles the lot of your questions. If you feel one remains, please reask it. I apologize for any mistakes.] 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::{{Reply to|Elizium23|p=,}} now I feel stupid; you're actually right. My brain just didn't notice the figures. — ] (]) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== what is a relief bill? == |
|
I agree with Hipocrite. Michael Schiavo did not misspell his wife's name in the oral testimony. So, if we're ''quoting'' Michael's spoken words, and just ''acknowledging'' the transcript as the source of information, we should say, "Michael said . . . Terri". If we're quoting the court transcript, we should say, "According to the court transcript, Michael said . . . Terry " The article, as it currently stands, is quoting Michael ("Michael explained", rather than, "According to the court transcript, Michael explained".) ] ] 22:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill |
|
:We have come a long way if the thing we're arguing about is whether or not the word "sic" should be in the article. If we're voting, put me down for "whatever gets the fewest reverts". I'll support either one as long as it means we can drop it as an issue. ] 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is a relief bill? ] (]) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
<font color=000099>Thank you, Hipocrite: The reason I couldn't initially find the quotes on the page was due to my searching for a phrase which had been fragmented or broken up by the mandatory line breaks; If I had searched for a smaller section of the phrase, I would have avoided that problem. I generally agree with FuelWagon that this is a minor problem, and don't see it is damaging the article; however, to be actually correct, we look at the , and we find that it is plain and strait forward: If the source is misspelling the word, then we use it. If you want to avoid using it, you might '''''then''''' list the actual source as the '''real''' transcript -and either list it's online source as a link to a webpage -or, if not available online, note that it is unavailable online, and cite the second source as having quoted the first source.--] 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Poll saying majority of Americans thought Michael Schiavo had the authority? == |
|
''Definition:'' sic1 (sĭk) |
|
|
adv. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the article it says |
|
Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> a large majority of Americans believed that Michael Schiavo should have had the authority to make decisions on behalf of his wife and that the U.S. Congress overstepped its bounds with its intervention in the case. |
|
<Font color=000099>(Please note that the actual definition does ''not'' give any exceptions, such as the one you and Ann suggest, but I think and hope both of my alternatives fit within the meaning of this grammatical rule.) As ] might say, "That's what logic would lead us to conclude."--] 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the linked article only supports the second point. I can’t find evidence that a majority supported giving Michael Schiavo authority, only that they thought political meddling inappropriate ] (]) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The source in this case is the oral testimony of an individual. He did not mispell anything. I have not suggested any exceptions. Can I repeat a question that hasn't been answered yet - "What is the reason to leave a transcription error in an verbal quote?" Can you tell me what is motivating you to contest this? ] 15:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::<font color=000099>'''"Can you tell me what is motivating you to contest this?"''' Yes: Your method (supported by Ann) implies that the transcript on the GeoCities.com site spells the name correctly. '''This is incorrect.''' I offered two alternatives (see above), as I recall, and they appear more accurate than your suggestion. While this is not a major issue, I think it's right to say that "it's the principle of the thing -and principles matter," because this is a template or example/role model for future actions and a discipline of the mind. Does that answer your question?--] 16:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::To be clear, your alternatives fail because the intial transcript, and all copies there of, mispelled the name. The individual giving the testimony, however, mispelled nothing, as he did not spell anything. In this case, the source is listed as "Michael testified," not "A transcript reads." ] 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::<font color=000099>Query: Do you mean the '''''original''''' transcript -the one done by the court reporter -misspelled Terri's name. Or, instead, do you mean that the original one got it right and the GeoCities.com web page misspelled or otherwise garbled the spellings? Thanks.--] 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::To be as clear as I can, there is no official transcript of the hearing in question that does not have Terri mispelled as Terry. The original transcript, the copy on the geocities cite, and all others, unless corrected by a third party, contain the word "Terry" numerous times, and the word "Terri" not once.] 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::<font color=000099>'''"...there is no official transcript of the hearing in question that does not have Terri misspelled as Terry."''' It seems you're saying the original transcripts misspell it. I know how the court reporters can misspell words, because they type them as fast as we speak -in real time, and probably don't correct them later. So, I guess that it's accurate to say "Michael Schiavo said" and then spell it right, '''''however, I would personally be happier if you could find a link to an official copy of the transcript and report it as "The original transcript reads" and then include "" to show the misspelling.''''' GeoCities is cool, but it is not an official transcript page, unless it is run by some person in authority, yet it is better than nothing. If an "official" source is not available, then we must use the GeoCities page. If you insist on using the "Michael said" method, I will concede that this is technically right. I'm sure Fuel Wagon will be very happy now that this is settled with my preferences above and my acceptance reluctantly here.--] 17:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::<font color=000099>So, no one ever answred my paramount question: Is an "official" copy of the transcript available somewhere online, and, if so, what's the link? (If you can find it, use BOTH links.)--] 17:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Well, if the choice is to say |
|
|
::::::::(1)Michael said "blah Terri" |
|
|
:::::::or |
|
|
::::::::(2)the court transcripts quote Michael as saying "blah Terry " |
|
|
:::::::Then I'd have to vote for (1). ] 17:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Heads up; Neutrality made major changes in intro == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not weighing in as of yet, but I wanted to give everybody a heads up: Neutrality has made a lot of changes without discussion or consensus recently. Most appear minor or otherwise innocuous, but one was a major rewrite of the intro. The paragraphs didn't line up, so it's hard to see what the exact changes were, and he doesn't tell us -and I wanted to make a note of it. One of the more notable changes he made was addition of this section: |
|
|
|
|
|
''The judicial and legislative battles over the removal of her feeding tube spawned considerable media coverage during the last few weeks of her life and sparked a fierce debate over bioethics, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
He ominously omits mention of euthanasia, even though this was the most preeminent issue over which debate was sparked. It smacks of POV pushing, when we take into account his similar edit in the past on this issue, but I'm merely like FOX News: I report; You decide.--] 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, |
|
|
|
|
|
From the , we find this quote: "夏沃丈夫坚持移除其]的行为导致了一系列关于]，]，]制度，]以及]的严重争论," which is to say: |
|
|
|
|
|
"...persisted 移除 its life support program behavior has caused a series of about the ], the ], the ], the ] as well as the ]." |
|
|
|
|
|
From the , we find this: "'''Theresa Marie Schiavo''' (] ] – † ] ]), más conocida como '''Terri Schiavo''' era una mujer ] en ] que abrió un acalorado debate sobre temas como la ], la ], ], ], y los ] en su país." |
|
|
|
|
|
From http://Google.com we can find that the points from the debate were more about euthanasia than any of the other terss, or so I found at last looking: |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=euthanasia+schiavo 142,000 |
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bioethics+schiavo 48,200 |
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22civil+rights%22+schiavo 193,000 |
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=federalism+schiavo 27,100 |
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=guardianship+schiavo 31,500 |
|
|
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22legal+guardianship%22+schiavo&btnG=Search 613 - that's all, just six hundred thirteen |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 18:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>Wagon, '''here above''' are my arguments regarding the slight modifications I made on neutrality's version; I make no specific arguments on his original version other than these two: |
|
|
|
|
|
1) He supported it, and i do, so that is a little bit of consensus; |
|
|
2) His version is superior to the version that was before, and I tweaked it to make it even better. |
|
|
Additionally, (#3), you may evaluate my changes here in talk at no major risk. |
|
|
--] 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Heads up. You won't be putting "euthenasia" into the intro. That was one battle already resolved. The version that was stable prior to User:Neutrality's recent edit didn't list any laundry list about whatever topics of dispute may have been raised by the Terri Schiavo case. That you and he support it is not "consensus" by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it an excuse to blow away a version of the intro that's been stable since mediation settled down. ] 21:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:At lot of material, for which there has been a long process of establishing consensus and neutrality, has been swept away by these frequent solo efforts at ''reorganization''. There's too much bad faith editing by pro-Michael POV pushers. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The past and present editing cabal wants to conceal what's really significant: It is the first case in the U.S. where a dispute over substituted judgment ended with a court order to remove nutrition and hydration from a human being and directly cause her death, not otherwise at risk of death. ] 21:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
While I certainly don't agree with Neutrality's POV, the fact is that on Misplaced Pages, anyone who isn't a vandal is entitled to make changes, regardless of invisible instructions, regardless of consensus, regardless of past votes. I don't endorse Neutrality's changes, but this is a wiki, and he does not need to obtain majority approval before he edits. It may be wise and courteous to do so, but it's not a requirement. If an edit goes against general consensus, it will probably be reverted pretty soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, Neutrality was one of the ones who kept ''taking out'' the reference to euthanasia. People may argue that this wasn't euthanasia under Florida law - although it was certainly a violation of the official teaching of Terri's religion concerning euthansia - but I don't see how they can possible argue that the case did not cause a huge debate over euthanasia, among other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, since there are doubts over the bulimia theory, I'm wondering do we really need all that stuff about her eating habits and dieting in the "Early Life" section? How reliable is the Miami Herald? (I read the article a few months ago, but you have to register now.) A few interviews with friends? (I can think of a few interviews with friends that would meet with strong opposition if a Schindler supporter tried to insert them!) Can we make the article shorter, not longer? ] ] 22:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>Does anyone speak ] or ]? (Just kidding, lol.) OK, in the spirit of compromise, I won’t complain about you changing the title's color format, but I get to keep using <nowiki><font color=000099> "Blue,"</nowiki> Wagon, since my purpose was to simply draw attention to the issue.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>However, in all seriousness, you raise a point about consensus that needs to be addressed. As far as I see it, there were two issues on the table on this point:</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''1 -''' Whether Neutrality's version should appear in the form that he had it at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''2 -''' If his version of the intro was allowed to stand, whether the public issues of controversy that was argued and debated should include Euthanasia (or not?). |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>Since approval of #2 would make moot #1, I will address #2 first: <font size=4><strong><u>VOTE COUNT:</u></strong></font> It's the time of truth:</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>Ann is right: Neutrality kept removing "Euthanasia" without comment, so his vote was "against," and you say your vote is too. (I think Duck may have been against, but I'm unsure.) OK, you have 2 1/2 votes on your side, but my count. I think Ann is right, and (while i admit I don't have the old diff), I vividly remember NCDave supporting my arguments. I would guess (but am not sure) that Pat Sweeny (Patsw) would agree with my logic to include mention of Euthanasia here.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>So, by my count, there are 3 1/2 votes FOR inclusion of euthanasia vs 2 1/2 AGAINST. That is slim but ever=present consensus. No, wait a second: I think Neuroscientist may have been for your version. OK, it's tied at 3 1/2 each. Tie-breaker, please?</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>Tie Breaker, at your request: No less than two other wikis (see talk above) concur with the version on which Ann and Dave and I concur. Lastly, when comparing apples with apples (terms with terms), google.com supports my version in its strongest terms. I will check to see if that version was honored, length notwithstanding.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:<font color=000099>Since the vote has gone in my favor (did I count right?), then consideration of '''#1''' above is moot and does not matter. I counted votes, Wagon, and gave you the benefit of the doubt on Neuroscientist's vote, even though I can't recall his exact stance, yet you are voted down this time. You will survive, right?--] 18:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>I made said changes; The accuracy of the changes is not a problem, nor is the ], Wagon. If you want to make an argument against me, your best bet is to take a two-fold approach here:</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>* '''1 -''' Argue for length, as in "it's too long for an intro."</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>* '''2 -''' Get additional concensus for your version.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>'''* BONUS 3 -''' Read the recent diff from the page history -to see the exact changes, and read the page to see "how it flows." Read, listen, look, think, twelve times before acting or editing once.--] 19:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
I don't ''have'' to do anything. You're attempts to insert "euthanasia" are transparent POV pushing. People have objected to that word since I started working on this article. It's POV, which makes it against policy. The entire laundry list of subjective descriptors are problematic. And the solution that worked was to delet all of them. Rather than have a list with euthenasia, and have people complain, there is NO list, and pretty much everyone went along with that. Except you, Gordon. "euthenasia" is completely POV, and it doesn't belong. ] 20:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Of course ''euthanasia'' is part of the article: |
|
|
:::* Where people are debating the Terri Schiavo case they are debating ''euthanasia'' and using that word. |
|
|
:::* Where people are debating ''euthanasia'' they are debating Terri Schiavo and naming her. |
|
|
:::This sounds like another appearance of Wiki-alternate-universe where the editing cabal can declare what's going on in the real world to be ''POV'' and suppress it from the article. |
|
|
:::There were, is now, and will be discussion and debate linking ''euthanasia'' and Terri Schiavo. |
|
|
:::(1) What is subjective or POV about ''euthanasia''? |
|
|
:::(2) So what exactly was Terri's death? FW, if it wasn't depriving her of food and water mercifully to hasten death, what are you calling it? An ''assisted suicide'' or something else? ] 20:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for demonstrating the very reason why I oppose this laundry list of subjective and highly partisan terms. This has nothing to do with reporting facts and has everything to do with people wanting to insert their righteous anger and accusations of witchcraft into the article. I call Terri's death a tragedy that resulted from her heart attack 15 years ago. And I call the decision to withdraw life support to have been true to her desire not to be hooked up on a machine in a persistent vegatative state. ] 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::WHAT?! What are you talking about, FuelWagon? Listen to yourself. "Subjective and highly partisan terms"? "righteous anger"?? (Which I might point out, if you're calling it righteous, you're admitting you're wrong, because they have a right to be angry). or my favorite, "Accusations of witchcraft"??? What's the definition of euthanasia? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::'''The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
::By the definition, Terri Schiavo was euthanized, ergo her "final wishes" were to be euthanized. If I said I wanted someone to pull the plug on me in that state, I'm saying I want them to euthanize me. It's not POV; people use the term all the time from the pro-side and the con-side. And if you think that the actual word is POV, then my guess is YOU are the one with the POV, not the people trying to put the word in the article. If you disagree with the above definition of euthanasia (which I took right from dictionary.com), what definition would you give it? It's obviously a different definition than that, since that definition would ''clearly'' apply to Terri Schiavo's case, and you wouldn't have a problem with it. What makes the word "euthanasia" POV? The stigma attached to it? If you're problem is with the stigma that's attached to it, I suggest you ask yourself why you have a problem with that stigma, and why that stigma IS attached to it. ] 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::from ], emphasis added by me: |
|
|
:::''Euthanasia in the strict sense involves actively causing death'' (active euthanasia). This is in some cases legal in the Netherlands and Belgium, but in no other countries (as of 2005). Euthanasia in a wider sense includes assisting sufferers to commit suicide, in particular physician-assisted suicide; this is legal in a small number of jurisdictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Allowing death''—e.g. by not providing life support or vital medication—''is not considered euthanasia'' if it is the patient's wish. It is sometimes called passive euthanasia in cases where the patient is unable to make decisions about treatment. Living wills and Do Not Resuscitate orders are legal instruments that make a patient's treatment decisions known ahead of time; ''allowing a patient to die based on such decisions is not considered to be euthanasia.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::So, "euthanasia" is illegal in the US. And yeah, I have a problem with the article saying what happened to Terri was illegal. ] 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<big>"]" is a term that includes "]."</big> ]<sup>]</sup> 21:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::So what aspects of bioethics, ''other than euthanasia'', are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Misplaced Pages describe ] as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) ] 23:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree with Gordon, Stanselmdoc, and Patsw. And, quite frankly, I can't understand the opposition. If someone suggested that the article should say that the case of Terri Schiavo was a euthanasia case, I could understand that some of those who supported Michael Schiavo would object, and would say that it wasn't euthanasia. But this discussion is not over whether or not the article should say that it ''was'' euthanasia; it's about whether or not the article should say that the case ''sparked a debate about'' euthanasia. Are the opponents arguing that it ''didn't'' spark a debate about euthanasia? Or do they agree that it did, but prefer that the article should not report that fact? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I disagree that the matter was already resolved. There was never an agreement. Those who support the Schindlers are in the minority here and are often overruled - we sometimes disappear for a while, and we are sometimes more concerned with more serious problems in the article. I have objected for months to the Misplaced Pages article reporting ''as fact'' unverifiable accounts that favour Michael Schiavo - e.g. that Terri collapsed in the hallway, that the noise woke Michael, and that he immediately phoned 911. (I have also made it clear that I don't favour a ''she-collapsed-under-mysterious-circumstances-while-alone-with-her-husband'' wording. I have voiced my objections several times. Just because I don't repeat my objections every week doesn't mean I have now come to accept it. Some months ago, when I voiced my objection in the talk page to the one example in the article of stating ''as fact'' that Michael's motive for studying nursing was a desire to learn how to take care of his wife, one of Michael's supporters immediately responded by inserting a ''second'' example of that objectional phrase into the article - and got away with it! There was nothing I could do, as I was in the minority, and in any case, I don't like edit wars. But it wasn't an experience that would encourage me to voice my concerns on the talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So yes, I vote for saying that the case sparked a debate about ''euthanasia'', rather than the more vague term ''bioethics'', which includes euthanasia, but includes many things that are not in any way connected with Terri Schiavo. I'd also go along with FuelWagon's suggestion of leaving out the whole list, which would make the article shorter, anyway. But, if there ''is'' a list of deabes sparked by this case, euthanasia should be on it. (And by the way, I acknowledge that FuelWagon did some useful - and presumably time-consuming - work on the chronology. Thanks, FW.) ] ] 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==33 affidavits== |
|
|
The "diagnosis dispute" section mentions 33 affidavits. I just found a decent link that explains that these 33 affidavits include Iyer and Hammersfar over the course of a couple of years. Some of these 33 affidavits are already covered in other sections of the article. In other words, 33 misrepresents the number of affidavits that disputed the diagnosis, because it reads as if they were ''additional'' affidavits, when then were actually part of some of the ''already mentioned'' affidavits. Apparently 17 of the affidavits were submitted Mar 5, just before Terri died according to . I want to move these 28 into chronological order, and I would like a link to the court's response. Anyone got anything? ] 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think I figured it out. Greer mentions 33 affidavits in the "Oral Feeding" section. I pulled some quotes from his decision and used them in the article. I should put the other link back in though... ] 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==leftover agreement== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've got one bit left over from the "Michael Schiavo" section. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''On ], ], Michael signed an agreement stating he would not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care, or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is important enough to put in its own subsection. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where it could go? Or just leave it out? ] 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Chronological== |
|
|
I think I've got all the chunks, bits, and subsections that were floating around with odd bits of information and have managed to put the entire article into mostly chronological order. No doubt it is not perfect, but I think it qualifies as an improvement over what it was before. ] 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:hm, I just skimmed through it one more time, and I ''know'' it's an improvement. Yeah, baaaabyyy. ] 01:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Euthanasia?== |
|
|
|
|
|
How is the word "euthanasia" POV pushing? Especially in reference to the debate that was fueled by the Terri Schiavo case...how is it pushing POV by using the word? The "case" on Terri Schiavo may not have been 'euthanasia-specific', but many of the "debates" that were fueled by it were very definitely 'euthanasia-specific', so how is it pushing POV in that instance? The argument makes no sense. The word "euthanasia" should be used when talking about the debates. Lord I give up on this article.] 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:<big>'''The word "]" is used as a generic term for all medical/ethical issues, including ].'''</big> ]<sup>]</sup> 21:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Fine, "bioethics". It just cheeses me off that I spend most of an entire day doing a major overhaul of the article and all some people care about is putting their POV hot-button word in the intro again. Did anyone even ''notice'' that the entire article has been put in chronological order? that those annoying chunks of random and unrelated bits of information are gone? That the wolfson report has it's own section? whatever. Go with "bioethics". ] 22:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So what aspects of bioethics, ''other than euthanasia'', are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Misplaced Pages describe ] as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) ] 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Give me a break. Terri Schiavo is to the term "euthenasia" like Tiger Woods is to the term "nigger". ] 00:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::That was uncivil of you, FW. I will not reply in kind. Are we at an impasse? Should I ask for formal ]? Wasn't Terri Schiavo deprived of nutrition and hydration from March 18 to March 31 in order to hasten her death? ] 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Distinguishing one dispute from another == |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>There are several disputes, and I fear that we are getting them confused:</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=006633>First, not in dispute, but worth mentioning, Wagon, when I left a note on SlimVirgin's page, asking for her to weigh in and vote (as an editor, not as an admin), '''I made a point that you had made many positive edit contributions.''' Hold on a sec, and let me get that diff: , "Revision as of 19:48, 9 August 2005" on SlimV's page.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
*<font color=000099>'''One possible dispute is whether use of "Euthanasia" says that Terri was euthanized.''' As Ann points out, the edit does not say that Terri ''WAS'' a victim of euthanasia. (Even though she probably ''WAS'' "euthanized," I would not support that edit, because that is POV-pushing.) However, the article doesn't say '''''that''''' with the edit in question: It says that the situation ''sparked a debate'' about Euthanasia. That is a dry recitation of the facts, not POV.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
*<font color=000099>'''"Those who support the Schindlers are in the minority here..."''' In the past, when NCdave voted on this, we were probably not in the minority, and we DEFINITELY are not now: '''"I agree with Gordon, Stanselmdoc, and Patsw."''' (quoting Ann) That ''is'' a majority, by my count, a supermajority, if you will, supporting inclusion of Euthanasia in the list -but that is contingent on the list being used in the first place.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
*<font color=000099>'''Should we even use the list I proposed?''' Ann voted 1/2 and 1/2 here: ''"So yes, I vote for saying that the case sparked a debate about euthanasia, rather than the more vague term bioethics, which includes euthanasia, but includes many things that are not in any way connected with Terri Schiavo. I'd also go along with FuelWagon's suggestion of leaving out the whole list, which would make the article shorter, anyway."'' I can't tell which way she votes, but it appears she accepts two methods, as do I, but I vote for the edit I made, and merely accept the other if it happens.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
*<font color=000099>Neutrality has said in large font size, at least twice, that Bioethics includes euthanasia, but most people don't understand that distinction in the general readership. His implication that we can use "Bioethics" as a stand-alone has apparently been voted down, by my count -and rightly so, '''but I must give Neutrality the credit for "sparking the debate" on this issue in the first place''' -with his random gung-ho editing.</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
<font color=000099>'''''CONCLUSION:''''' It looks like My version has enough ''more than enough'' votes, but I haven't checked the page to see if it was allowed to stand. If it is, FuelWagon, you can relax, because the "laundry list," as you call it, was accepted by the Hispanic AND Chinese wikis, and your only objection (and a weak argument, I think) would be that it is too long: It pushes no point of view and merely states facts: The controversy sparked debate. Period. so, relax, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling in.--] 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
|
|
|
|
:In the interest of not blowing my mind making my own individual response to FuelWagon, I'm going to just vote on Gordon's version. I think there is nothing wrong with mentioning what this case sparked, as long as it doesn't get into it's own debate about it. ] 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::<font color=000099>'''The vote is now closed: Six participants constitutes a quorum:''' You and I and Pat and Ann voted FOR mentioning euthanasia in the intro; Neutrality and FuelWagon voted against it. '''The vote was ruled 4-2''' in your favor. <s>Neutrality also made the guardianship link not active, and I will fix that since wiki encourages active links, if they are a Misplaced Pages link, and further, this matter was not debated, so it falls in favor of "wikifying" the link if it was not voted down.</s> ''Scratch that -I see he corrected himself on this point,'' but is stubborn and refuses to accept concensus on the other point: I will change it, and if they give any more trouble, I will notify ArbCom and ask for either mediation or arbitration.--] 01:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font> |
|
Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.
I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at User:Pages777/Terri Schiavo case lead. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--Pages777 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
But the linked article only supports the second point. I can’t find evidence that a majority supported giving Michael Schiavo authority, only that they thought political meddling inappropriate 70.95.34.174 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
