Talk:Terri Schiavo case: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:02, 10 August 2005

Latest revision as of 17:17, 17 July 2025

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:Terri Schiavo/Mediation]].}}

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{Article history

{{todo}}

|action1=PR

{{TOCcenter}}

|action1date=2005-04-25, 09:35:23

|action1link=Wikipedia: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): [[Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives]]

|action2date=2005-06-06, 10:36:09

|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo/archive2

|action2result=Reviewed

|action2oldid=14812474

|action3=PR

== "End of life" ==

|action3date=2005-08-26, 11:41:50

|action3link=Wikipedia: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". [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 20:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

|action4date=2005-09-03, 15:05:07

|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1

|action4result=Failed

|action4oldid=22404082

|action5=FAC

|action5date=2005-09-11, 12:54:39

|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2

|action5result=Failed

|action5oldid=22986120

|action6=FAC

:First paragraph of the [http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf court order] says:

|action6date=2005-10-04, 10:57:45

|action6link=Wikipedia: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=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive4

|action7result=Failed

|action7oldid=30979770

|action8=GAN

:So, "end of life" seems to be grounded in legal documents. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 22:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

|action9date=02:22, 27 March 2009

|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Terri Schiavo case/archive1

|action9result=reviewed

|action9oldid=279927735

|action10=FAC

== sic ==

|action10date=20:07, 2 April 2009

|action10link=Wikipedia: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.[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20276255&oldid=20223889 17:54, 4 August 2005 Hipocrite (sic removed)] 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 "[sic]" 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=Wikipedia: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|listas=Schiavo, Terri|blp=no|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."--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

A custom index of the '''archives''' for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at [[Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives]] 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? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 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,--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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 [[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.--[[User:Pages777|Pages777]] ([[User talk:Pages777|talk]]) 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? [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 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 [[WP:POV]] and [[MOS:EDITORIAL]] 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. --[[User:Scuoise|Scuoise]] ([[User talk:Scuoise|talk]]) 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."

@[[User: Elizium23|Elizium23]], 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? &mdash; [[User:Python Drink|Python Drink]] ([[User talk:Python Drink|talk]]) 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. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 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.[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 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. &mdash; [[User:Python Drink|Python Drink]] ([[User talk:Python Drink|talk]]) 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 [''sic.'']" The article, as it currently stands, is quoting Michael ("Michael explained", rather than, "According to the court transcript, Michael explained".) [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |^(talk)]] 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 00:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

what is a relief bill? [[User:Marnanel|Marnanel]] ([[User talk:Marnanel|talk]]) 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 [http://www.answers.com/topic/sic-2 textbook definition of "sic"], 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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.

[Latin sīc.] [http://www.answers.com/topic/sic-2]

> 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 [[Mr. Spock]] might say, "That's what logic would lead us to conclude."--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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 [[Special:Contributions/70.95.34.174|70.95.34.174]] ([[User talk:70.95.34.174|talk]]) 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? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 15:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:They thought meddling was inappropriate because he was her husband and legal guardian. So, same thing.The article clearly states, or should, that the political meddling began with a paperwork blunder. There was HUGE support for Michael in the media, which I remember, but can't prove. [[Special:Contributions/2600:387:15:3215:0:0:0:1|2600:387:15:3215:0:0:0:1]] ([[User talk:2600:387:15:3215:0:0:0:1|talk]]) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (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?--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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." [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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.[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 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 "[sic]" 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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.)--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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 [sic]"

:::::::Then I'd have to vote for (1). [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 18:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI,

From the [http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=zh_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25E7%2589%25B9%25E4%25B8%25BD%25C2%25B7%25E5%25A4%258F%25E6%25B2%2583 CHINESE Wiki], we find this quote: "夏沃丈夫坚持移除其[[zh:生命支持系统]]的行为导致了一系列关于[[zh:生物伦理学]]，[[zh:安乐死]]，[[zh:监护人]]制度，[[zh:联邦制]]以及[[zh:民权]]的严重争论," which is to say:

"...persisted 移除 its life support program behavior has caused a series of about the [[zh:生物伦理学|biological ethics]], the [[zh:安乐死|euthanasia]], the [[zh:监护人|guardian system]], the [[zh:联邦制|federal system]] as well as the [[zh:民权|civil rights serious argument]]."

From the [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo Hispanic Wiki], we find this: "'''Theresa Marie Schiavo''' ([[es:3 de diciembre|3 de diciembre]] [[es:1963|1963]] – † [[es:31 de marzo|31 de marzo]] [[es:2005|2005]]), más conocida como '''Terri Schiavo''' era una mujer [[es:Estados Unidos|estadounidense]] en [[es:estado vegetativo irreversible|estado vegetativo irreversible]] que abrió un acalorado debate sobre temas como la [[es:eutanasia|eutanasia]], la [[es:bioética|bioética]], [[es:tutela|tutela legal]], [[es:federalismo|federalismo]], y los [[es:derechos civiles|derechos civiles]] 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

--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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.

--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 21:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While I certainly don't agree with Neutrality's POV, the fact is that on Wikipedia, 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? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |^(talk)]] 22:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

:<font color=000099>Does anyone speak [[Chinese]] or [[Spanish]]? (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?--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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 [[POV]], 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20636861&oldid=20601560 HERE] 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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. [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

::from [[euthanasia]], 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

<big>"[[Bioethics]]" is a term that includes "[[euthanasia]]."</big> [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 21:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

::So what aspects of bioethics, ''other than euthanasia'', are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Wikipedia describe [[Tiger Woods]] as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 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 Wikipedia 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.) [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |^(talk)]] 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

==33 affidavits==

The "diagnosis dispute" section mentions 33 affidavits. I just found a decent link [http://mediamatters.org/items/200503280008 here] 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 [http://www.terrisfight.net/press/030405medaff.html this]. I want to move these 28 into chronological order, and I would like a link to the court's response. Anyone got anything? [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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... [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==leftover agreement==

I've got one bit left over from the "Michael Schiavo" section.

:''On [[June 18]], [[2000]], 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? [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:hm, I just skimmed through it one more time, and I ''know'' it's an improvement. Yeah, baaaabyyy. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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.[[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:<big>'''The word "[[bioethics]]" is used as a generic term for all medical/ethical issues, including [[euthanasia]].'''</big> [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 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". [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 22:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:::So what aspects of bioethics, ''other than euthanasia'', are part of the Terri Schiavo discussion? Does the Wikipedia describe [[Tiger Woods]] as an athlete or as a golfer? (After all, the term athlete includes golfer) [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 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". [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 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 [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]? Wasn't Terri Schiavo deprived of nutrition and hydration from March 18 to March 31 in order to hasten her death? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::It wasn't uncivil. You attempted to assert that "euthenasia" is a subset of "bioethics" like "golfer" is a subset of "athlete" with your Tiger Woods analogy. My point is that "euthanasia" is about as neutral to Terri Schiavo's case as "nigger" is to Tiger Woods. Both are partisan, both are hotly disputed, and neither should be inserted into the releveant articles because neither qualifies as undisputed fact. Polls show that the majority of americans don't think this was euthanasia, so the term is disputed by a significant portion of the population, let alone that it is disputed by the courts, the guardian ad litems, and Michael. And you're begging the question about "wasn't Terri deprived of nutrition" conveniently ignores the euthanasia entry in wikipedia itself that explains that withdrawing life support is not euthanasia. We are at an impasse as long as you want to keep inserting as fact a term that is disputed by major players in the article.

:::::::Do not have the article state "this was about euthanasia". If you want to do this NPOV, then report the different views from their sources. Which means report ALL the POV's around any particular point of contention. Before Gordon takes that as a blank check to insert every conspiracy theory and every hot button term he can drag up, I'll point out wikipedia's rules for sourcing your edits. And I'll also point out the recent deletion to the article after Hammersfarh emailed Jimbo Wales. Reporting highly charged and emotional words from various sources cannot be done haphazardly. So, we need independent and reliable sources, we need QUOTES, not historical revisionism, and we need all the sides of the story. The place I suggest to start would be newspaper articles, rather than blogs or partisan sites, because newspapers at least have some requirement to represent different sides of a story and are subject to libel suits if they misquote someone. A good format for a sentence reporting different views while following NPOV policy would be something of the form: [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::::''Regarding (specific event) that occured on (date), (name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", (name3) said "quote3", etc. (URL containing quotes)'' [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::We can then insert them into the article within the subsections that relate to whatever specific event that occurred. The example I can think of at the moment is that a main player said a particular court decision was "judicial homicide". That was a quote made by someone specific on a certain date about a particular judgement. It would need to be presented as a quote and a URL would have to support it. To keep the article NPOV, once this view is inserted, all the other major views around the same judgement need to be represented. Michael's view of the judgement. The Judge's view. Any appeal's court view. Any guardian ad litem's views, etc. This is not a blank check to insert all teh partisan quotes with no other points of view that opposed them.[[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Once some of the editors show they can follow this procedure and the article is ammended to report some of the POV's during various stages, and neutrality is maintained, then we'll actually have some source information to use to decide how we want to represent the overall POV's in the intro. If this simply results in some editors inserting quotes from a million different blogs that call this murder, then that will reveal who can follow NPOV policy, and who is simply POV pushing, and then I would agree that dispute resolution is needed. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I would also remind certain editors of the wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. A good faith effort would start with mainstream newpapers and similar. If this turns into an attempt to insert comments from someone's personal partisan website, then bad faith is revealed, and I will do my damndest to oppose it. If this becomes a snowball effect to overwhelm the article with one side's POV, I'll do my damndest to revert the whole thing. Play nice and follow wikipedia policy and this should make the article better. push POV and ignore policy and there's gonna be trouble. The ball is in your court. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon...it...it almost hurts to respond to you. How often do you hear the term "euthanasia" on the news? Eh, frequently enough I suppose. People use it in regular conversations every now and then. It's in medical dictionaries and such. But um...last time I checked, didn't hear the word "nigger" on tv anywhere. Nor in any newspaper, regular conversations, or in any sort of medical dictionary. I can't believe you're trying to compare a medical term to what most people consider a foul word and don't use it. Next you're going to tell me that the very word ''"abortion"'' is "inherently POV", along with ''"coma"'' and ''"paralyzed".'' Your very argument is flawed. What you said wasn't even "uncivil" as patsw says; it was just dumb. It makes no sense. '''You attempted to assert that "euthenasia" is a subset of "bioethics" like "golfer" is a subset of "athlete" with your Tiger Woods analogy.''' What do you mean he attempted? He drew a much better analogy than you did. Golfer IS a subset of Athlete. Euthanasia IS a subset of general Bioethics. It's right there next to mercy killing, right-to-die issues, etc.

'''"Polls show that the majority of americans don't think this was euthanasia"''' - First, what polls are you speaking of? Where's the research? And second, it doesn't matter anyway, because wiki isn't supposed to be about presenting the "popular" or the "majority" idea. It's supposed to present the facts, like an encyclopedia. AND YOU JUST PROVED OUR ARGUMENT. Someone had to have asked these people if they felt Terri Schiavo’s death was euthanasia, and they clearly answered yay or nay = there was a debate over it! If there’s a poll on it, clearly people were discussing it! Hence, clearly it should be mentioned that people were debating euthanasia as a result of Terri.

And once again, '''this isn't about whether to say Terri was "euthanized" or not.''' This is about whether her death sparked discussions on euthanasia. IT DID! It was all over the news. I agree with you, FuelWagon, if you want to display all sides of the argument blah blah blah and make the article much longer than it should be, whatever, let's do it. But the FACT is, it would be much simpler to say that her death sparked hot debates from all sides of the euthanasia debate, including exactly how to define euthanasia. Geez, I can't even believe I took the time to write this. This is like arguing whether or not the word "abortion" should be used in the article on [[Roe v. Wade]]. [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:You want to use "Roe v. Wade" instead? Fine. What would you say about this in that article? "Roe v. Wade generated a huge public debate over women's reproductive rights, contraception, and murdering the unborn." Now try it on the Terri Schiavo article: "Terri's case generate huge debate over bioethics, guardianship, euthanasia, and judicial homicide." I do not dispute the fact that some people hold the view that abortion is murder, or that Terri was euthanized, or that Greer committed judicial homicide. But you cannot tell me that it is NPOV to simply present those views were topics for neutral debate. I won't buy it. Euthanasia is illegal in the US. Following someone's end-of-life wishes when they are terminal is not. Murder is illegal, following someone's end-of-life wishes is not. "Terri's case generated huge debate over murder" is not neutral. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is your argument has changed? Before, you were saying that "euthanasia" shouldn't be mentioned in the article, now it seems that you would be willing to put it in, as long as it's in a neutral tone. Is that correct? If so, would you mind if it was worded like ''"Terri's case generated huge debate over [[bioethics]], guardianship, judicial homicide, and the definition of [[euthanasia]]."'' OR ''"Terri's case generated huge debate over [[bioethics]], guardianship, and judicial homicide. In some instances, many people argued Terri's death was an act of [[euthanasia]]."'' OR something else like that? I think it sounds reasonable enough to state that there were discussions on euthanasia after her death, even if her death wasn't ruled as euthanasia.

And the term "euthanasia" is not POV. What would you prefer to have? "Mercy killing"? "Right-to-Die"? I don't think "bioethics" is good enough, because it's so broad. And I'm glad you compared "euthanasia" to "murdering the unborn", but you skipped from NPOV to POV. "Murdering the unborn" is obviously POV (even though it's true, so it makes no sense), but you should have compared it to "abortion". Again, your analogy makes no sense. It would either have to be: ''"euthanasia" is to "abortion"'' OR it would have to be: ''"murdering the handicapped" is to "murdering the unborn".'' '''But this doesn't matter anyway because you're still avoiding the point.''' The question is: was the term "euthanasia" used in the debates sparked by Terri's case? And the answer is YES. So it should be mentioned just as it is, and regardless of whether you think it's POV, or regardless of whether you want to hide the truth of the instance behind pretty words, it shouldn't be sugar-coated if that's what they were talking about. If the [[Roe v. Wade]] article said the case sparked debate over "murdering the unborn", I would change it to the medical term "abortion". Just like if this article said the case sparked debate over "murdering the handicapped", I would change it to the medical term "euthanasia". Not the social term "mercy killing" just because some people don't want to think about what euthanasia really means. [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 18:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:His argument hasn't changed, you're just paying more attention to semantics and arguing for arguing's sake than the actual article. Your assertion that bioethics is not sufficient is baseless, give me an example of what use of the specific term euthanasia adds to the article. There were many, many words "used in the debates sparked by Terri's case" and that's a useless watermark for determining inclusion in the article.

:[[User:Fox1|Fox1]] 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

'''This whole thing is about semantics,''' Fox1! I didn't start this argument, I came in in the middle, so I don't see how your accusation of me using semantics to argue semantics means anything. It would only prove 1. that the argument over the word "euthanasia" is dumb and 2. that the people arguing it are dumb. Well.....yes. This is a dumb argument and frankly we're all dumb for continuing the argument. And this whole article is dumb as well for that matter. TERRI IS DEAD. And we're arguing over a crappy wiki article. A woman died, has been dead for some time, and we don't have the respect to lay off of the petty details of her article. That's so sad. And I'm including myself in that. But I'd at least like to defend her any chance I can, since she got no defense on this earth.

And I wasn't arguing against the word "bioethics" at all. I was arguing FOR the word "euthanasia". Don't confuse the two. What I specifically said was ''I don't think "bioethics" is good enough, because it's so broad.'' If we have a consensus to use the word "bioethics", that's fine. I was just giving my opinion, because (God forbid) I prefer being specific rather than broad. But I don't have any particular hatred of the word "bioethics" being used. Except that FuelWagon himself got mad when patsw tried to place euthanasia under bioethics. So by his own reasoning, bioethics isn't a sufficient word to use, since it doesn't cover euthanasia. I'm just trying to cover to euthanasia. And the point I was trying to make (which obviously didn't work, since you misunderstood) wasn't about the different words used in the debates. It was about the subjects of the debates. One of the subjects was euthanasia. Another one was bioethics. So I don't see the point in removing the word "euthanasia" just because someone thinks the word is inherently POV. We may as well remove the judicial homicide because "judicial homicide" is a POV term against judges and lawyers. That's the kind of reasoning I'm seeing. And I think it's bogus reasoning. And don't tell me I'm arguing for arguing's sake. That's an attempt at trying to get me to let it go and just let FuelWagon have his PC way. But you know what, I may just do that anyway. Terri's memory is already too caught up in legal crap for anyone to realize anymore that she was actually a human person who died of dehydration as a result of her feeding tube being removed (euthanasia), and not as a result of her collapse years before. Where has our common sense gone? Out the PC window. God bless, [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:''The question is: was the term "euthanasia" used in the debates sparked by Terri's case?'' That's not the question. The question is does the sentence "The case sparked a debate over euthanasia" avoid the requirement of representing different point of views because it is undisputed fact? My answer is no, because many would say the debate was not about euthanasia, something which is illegal in the US. People use the ''term'' "murder" when they talk about abortion, but that doesn't mean "an abortion debate is about murder". I do not know how to be any more clear on this. There were no debates ''about'' euthanasia. Terri's case was not ''about'' euthanasia. People may have ''argued'' the case using ''terms'' like euthanasia, but that is their point of view, which is disputed by other players in the case. Therefore it cannot be said as undisputed fact that the case was "about euthanasia". [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and '''thanks for completely ignoring''' my very honest and pointed question, FuelWagon, when I asked if you would consider something like ''"Terri's case generated huge debate over [[bioethics]], guardianship, judicial homicide, and the definition of [[euthanasia]]."'' OR ''"Terri's case generated huge debate over [[bioethics]], guardianship, and judicial homicide. In some instances, many people argued Terri's death was an act of [[euthanasia]]."'' I was actually trying to find a way to write something to represent what you were saying. But since it's all or nothing for you, I'll just forget about compromise. God bless, [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

::I said above that one way to solve this would be report the different point of views: "Regarding (specific event) that occured on (date), (name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", (name3) said "quote3", etc. (URL containing quotes)" You're reply to that post called it "dumb", among other things. So, I may have missed that you were actually proposing a compromise. Let me have a look. ... Ok, I gave it another read. if you're going to present the point of view that some people considered Terri's case to be euthanasia, don't you think it ought to include the countering views? Michael, the courts, the guardian ad litems, and some chunk of the american population didn't think this was euthanasia. That was sort of my point in my dumb argument that it should say ''(name1) said "quote1", (name2) said "quote2", etc''. Another alternative is to use a list of terms that are not disputed, such as "bioethics" and the like, and avoid POV terms like "euthanasia" or "judicial homicide" (a quote from Bob Schindler). Another solution that I tried, and actually worked until Gordon got obsessed with "euthanasia" was to remove the list altogether. The article was actually fairly stable for awhile after the list was removed. That's what I see as possible solutions:

::#remove the list completely and make no pronouncements as to what any debates were "about",

::#list terms for debate that are undisputed, or

::#list the individual POV's from all sides so that one side can call it "euthanasia" and another side can call it "following the law with regard to end-of-life choices for a patient who expressed the wish not to be kept on life support".

::But stating as fact that this was about euthanasia is straight out. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

<font color=000099>'''...until Gordon got obsessed with "euthanasia"...''' Maybe I ''was'' a little "obsessed" over accuracy and consistency, by using what had been a good solution for ALL THREE wikis (English, Chinese, Hispanic) until recently --however it was NEUTRALITY, not myself, that reintroduced the "laundry list." I merely "cleaned up" the incomplete list.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 22:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

How about a small sentence saying that "In addition to the massive legal debates, the Schiavo case fueled many human rights debates before and after her death." or something. I think (in the interest of keeping the already really long article as short as possible) that a small mention is enough, without needing any defense per side.[[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:I don't know. It's neutral enough, but it doesn't say much, either. You want this instead of "bioethics"? Or is that in the sentence before? Is this option 1, 2, or 3? I think this is (2), but I'm not sure. Are you taking approach (2)? I'm assuming that you're saying "human rights" is not disputed. "bioethics" didn't do it for you? or is that still in the sentence before? Or is the list gone and replaced with just "human rights"? I'm so confused right now. Real world is calling anyway. I'll ponder it a bit more. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:<strong><em><u>NEW</u> ANALYSIS of</em> Foreign Wiki's</strong>

:<font color=000099>If I'm reading the debate right, it looks like we can make FuelWagon happy by letting him put in some counter-description in addition -to counter or balance the "euthanasia debate" statement, which, by the way, is fact. I am open to such a compromise, but before I finish this paragraph, let me remind everybody that the Chinese Wiki used all FIVE terms, including "Euthanasia" -and, while the Hispanic Wiki sometimes used less than ALL FIVE terms, Euthanasia was ALWAYS used in recent times. That ought to tell you something. WAGON, are you saying all the other wikis missed something. Yeah, right: Say that all are wrong, and you are right -but I am open to the compromise that you and '''[[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]]''' seem to favor.</font>

:<font color=000099>One other thing: Wagon, you want sources, right? Well, the Google.com data in this talk page PROVES that it sparked debate about euthanasia -more than anything else. PS: Thanks for making all the right points, [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]]: You argued a flawless argument.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

:just a quick note: Gordon, stop using wiki as a source for wiki. It doesn't qualify. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 20:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

::<font color=000099>Where is ''that'' in the rules? It ''is'' true that a wiki can not be used as a source for ''itself,'' because that would mean that you could use an error as a source for itself -begging the argument -circular reasoning, so to speak -but these are ''different'' wikis. EVERYONE uses wikis as sources? Why not us? Unless you are prepared to call ALL those wikis AND myself and NCdave, AND patsw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc ALL stupid, your argument falters.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

::<font color=000099>Better, instead, concentrate on the compromise that you and Stan seem to favour.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

== 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=20640828&oldid=20640737#Your_vote_is_desired Here it is], "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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 01:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

::::''chicken little''? Care to launch any more personal attacks Gordon? Don't forget to mention that in arbcom. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 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 Wikipedia 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 consensus 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.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 01:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

:::"vote is now closed". There was no vote, Gordon. You simply took the bits and pieces that you wanted from people's posts and voted ''for them''. Once you accumulated enough "votes", you declared it "closed". Not only are you ballot stuffing, you're declaring when elections can be held, and when they can be closed. And you file an arbcom against someone who "voted" the other way??? unbelievable. [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 18:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::You don't get to hold votes, close votes or in any manner make them binding, Gordon. Why don't you go ahead and count my 'vote' against, making it 4-3, which isn't consensus... but then, 4-2 wasn't consensus either. The inclusion of euthanasia adds absolutely nothing beyond what bioethics adds to the article, and you're being contentious for no better reason, that I can see, than that you think you can get away with it this time.

::::This is not a personal attack, it is a warning: beware [[delusions of grandeur]].

::::[[User:Fox1|Fox1]] 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

::::<font color=000099>Vote against it, do you, Fox ?? Are you saying the Chinese AND the Hispanic wikis AND myself AND Pastw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc AND Google.com ALL wrong? Yeah, right! Delusions and dream on...are '''''<u>ALL</u>''''' stupid? ''Yeah, they/we are all stupid, and you're right.'' If you believe that, then guess who 'really'' has the delusions of grandeur.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Update, pursuant to Neutrality's threats [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323 here]], he has been reported to ArbCom here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=20666603&oldid=20664909#Potential_admin_abuse_by_Neutrality

:::--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think arbcom reports should be reserved for more serious matters. Yes, I disagree with Neutrality, but removing [[euthanasia]] from an article is something that ''any'' Wikipedian has the power to do; it doesn't require admin powers so it can't be an abuse of admin powers. I think invisible instructions of the "do not change this" nature should be used very sparingly, mainly in cases where new editors frequently arrive and insert or remove something without knowing that has been discussed thoroughly on the talk page. As SlimVirgin said some time ago, you can't insert invisible instructions and expect future editors to obey them on Wikipedia. I think they shouldn't be used for something where there is a current disagreement and where the only people likely to make a change are people who are already engaged in the discussion on the talk page. So, I don't think Neutrality should have inserted '''<nowiki><!--Bioethics is a general term that includes many of the issues involved in the case including euthanasia. Do not remove, replace, or add the term "euthanasia"--></nowiki>'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=next&oldid=20648147], but any ordinary contributor can insert invisible comments - I've done so in the past - so it has nothing to do with use or abuse of admin status. Also, I don't think a vote can be closed so quickly. And, to quote SlimVirgin again, past votes have no effect on future editors - this is a wiki. Can we keep up the discussion? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |^(talk)]] 07:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:<font color=000099>'''"I think arbcom reports should be reserved for more serious matters."''' Yes, I agree, but even Duckecho complained about Neutrality's hit-and-run editing style, where he acted on his own and without a team effort, so this is a repeat offense, that is, a "pattern of behavior." '''"it doesn't require admin powers so it can't be an abuse of admin powers."''' To some extent, you're right: It's "editor" abuse, or whatever, ''but'' since he is an admin, his actions are slightly intimidating: That is why a captain of a ship or manager of a restaurant or an officer in the army is held to higher standards for infractions such as adultery or fraternizing with subordinates: the "Intimidation" factor.</font>

:<font color=000099>One more thought on admin abuse: Since we see Neutrality's lack of clear reasoning here AND since we remember how he blocked NCdave for three days a few months back (and for what good reason? no justification), his admin qualifications ''are'' called into question, because an editor with poor judgement should not be an admin. However, let us not forget that Neutrality is otherwise intelligent and very hardworking. I wonder why he is acting so out of character -I wonder why ''anyone'' would oppose a common sense edit. He needs to be examined, and so does anyone else that argues for such a trivial point. ??</font>

:<font color=000099>His actions constitute a "pattern of behavior," and thus, when we say, "it's the principle of the matter," we refer to precedent being set to lower the standards of behavior. '''"past votes have no effect on future editors"''' Well, in ArbCom, there is more likelihood that past votes ''do'' matter, and if ArbCom is fair and follows the rules like a computer, the outcome will be well. If not, "oh well," it is a good investment with the odds in favor of the right. My concern is that he is fighting for something in which, if he were to "lose," no harm would befall, and I am concerned about Neutrality, the person, as much as I am about "[[Terri Schiavo]]," the article.</font>

:<font color=000099>On an unrelated note, you are putting in two spaces between sentences, but in the page, it only shows one. For example, look at this sentence in the edit dialogue, and then on the page. See the difference? I know that double spacing is a norm in some writing circles, but it has no real utility to my mind.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 10:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

== Current status of '''''"sparked a fierce debate over [[euthanasia]]"''''' edit ==

<font color=000099>FW made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20690579&oldid=20668556 revert here] of my edit; and my edit was effectively a revert (or "revision") of Neutrality's edit.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

<font color=000099>If my argument really has merit, another editor will probably replace the offensive deletion. If that doesn't happen, then our arguments weren't meritous enough.</font>

<font color=000099>I won't "revert" ''per se,'' because that would not be the "wiki" thing to do, but I may attempt a compromise as Stan and Wagon were discussing below -even though this would increase the word length and is not favored.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 22:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

*<font color=000099>OK, I've granted your request, Stan, to include the proposed language, and Wagon, I've not only provided a source, but I've provided the "counter viewpoint" -with a source too -as you've requested. Now, are you happy?--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 22:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

::Gordon, knock it off. Stop saying your version has "consensus" or satisfies a "compromise" when we're still talking about it. There has been no agreement or compromise yet that has any sort of consensus. Your use of google as a "source" is laughable, and "some" and "others" is generally a red flag for weasel words. How about some specific people actually involved in the case. Do you have a quote from the Schindlers calling this euthanasia? What did the courts call it? the appeals courts call it? the doctors? the guardian ad litems? Michael? Those were the main players in this story. Don't give me "some" and "others" and a google search for your POV phrase as a "source". Find what ALL the players said. Give links to everyone's quotes. Do some actual work. Stop pushing POV. I didn't work on this article for all these months just to have you slap "This was euthanasia" in the intro. Sheesh. I can't leave you alone for a second.... [[User:FuelWagon|FuelWagon]] 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wagon speaks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20729392&oldid=20727728 "revert Gordon. There was no "compromise". the matter is still in discussion on talk. and "some" and "others" often qualifies as weasel words. Anything to say "euthanasia", eh Gordon?"] <font color=000099>Now, don't put words into my mouth: I didn't say "Euthanasia." I said that is ''sparked debate,'' and even bent to your requests to provide other views -and links.</font>

<font color=000099>You'll do anything to suppress accurate and complete reporting of the facts, won't you? Part of the story is all you want to get out. You didn't lie; you merely selectively reported the truth, but incomplete is inherently POV, so, you suggest a solution that would include the FACTS and TRUTH about the "debate on euthanasia." (Be glad I'm not a weirdo, or I'd insist on language that included "murder" and "starvation," which, by the way, are factually true and correct, but probably a bit POV.) '''Wagon disputes acceptance of compromise; <s>However, what would HE propose to report the truth and the WHOLE truth?</s>''' Scratch that; He answered me as I was typing...--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

<font color=000099>'''"Do you have a quote from..."''' OK, when I was typing this, I had not seen your recent edit, and had an edit conflict. I may be able to scare up something concrete -and, yes, I'll try to get "both" sides of the story from "reputable main player" and with links/sources. Was hoping y'all would, but let's see what can be done...--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)</font>