Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

NPOV flag

Regarding the addition of the NPOV flag, the neutrality of this [1] paragraph is disputed:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [25] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [26], a facility, which in her state of Florida, is typically only legally allowed to admit terminally ill patients. [27]

Specifically, the phrase "typically only legally" qualifies as weasel words that imply the transfer was not typical and was illegal. The courts and guardian ad litems appointed to have Terri's best interests at heart never found the transfer to be illegal or inappropriate.

Since the page is currently locked, no changes can be made to correct this paragraph. FuelWagon 16:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Ann

I have to admit that, although I've been involved with this article for ages, I'm a bit lost as well. I've been very busy in the last few days – filling in forms that had a deadline – and now I find the talk page is full over some dispute. I really don't have the energy to read through a lot of long postings at the moment (I might do it later), but for now I'll just make a few points. I agree with what patsw said in the "I'm lost" section. I don't have to read the whole talk page for that, because he's referring to a problem that has existed on this article for months.

• In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice, and that the Schindlers, their lawyers, and the organizations that supported them argued that this was improper – they may even have said illegal; let's find the reference – because a hospice is supposed to take people who only have a few months to live. Terri was not terminally ill in the normal sense of the word. She did not die of PVS (even assuming that she was in a PVS) – she died because a decision was taken to end her life by removing her nutrition and hydration. Whether or not she wanted to die is a separate issue, and we shouldn't clog up Wikipedia server space squabbling about it, since Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides as to which party was "right". However, it is appropriate to discuss whether or not the article should report that this woman, who was not dying, was put in a hospice. (If she had been dying, there would have been no need to remove the tube.) Like a baby, she was incapable of feeding herself (and of speaking for herself), and therefore, when her feeding was removed, she died. We don't put babies in hospices arguing that they'll die unless we feed them since they're incapable of feeding themselves, and therefore they're terminally ill. So yes, the article should report that. There's no need to put it in a nasty, insinuating kind of way; I don't suggest we put it straight after "although she was not dying". It should be possible to find a wording that isn't POV (unless Michael Schiavo's supporters, of which there are many on this article, think that any reporting of facts that show Michael's actions as possibly suspect are by definition POV). It's not for Wikipedia to take sides, so we don't say that it was illegal. But we should say that it happened, and that it was challenged by the Schindlers on the following grounds, etc., and that their supporters pointed out that Michael Schiavo's lawyer was on the board of the hospice. Some of the more passionate editors on this article seem to spend most of their Wikipedia time on this article, but if they looked at other Wikipedia articles, they'd see that there is no policy of suppressing a piece of information about something that happened on the grounds that courts and guardians did not say that it was illegal.

• If the squabbling is about bulimia, the I have the following comments – since the time that I got involved with this article, the majority side here was on the side of Michael Schiavo. These editors, to a certain extent, controlled the article. (That was not the case earlier, I note, and some versions in February, for example, are heavily biased towards the Schindlers' POV.) Wikipedia policy is such that the majority side will always win edit wars, because of 3RR, but on this particular page there was a remarkable lack of civility, which, I believe, drove away many editors, ensuring that the Michael supporters were even more in the majority than they had been. The bulimia theory was disputed by Schindler supporters, but various attempts to insert words like "probably" or "possibly" were reverted by Michael supporters [2], [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Incredibly, one of these editors kept pushing the bulimia theory even after the autopsy report had been released [10], [11]. Apart from that last-mentioned editor, the general argument in the edit summaries, or on the talk page, was that the court ruled she had bulimia, therefore she had bulimia. When the autopsy report came out, they quietly dropped their argument on that subject, but kept it up for their belief that Terri was in a PVS and that she wanted to die. Wikipedia does not take sides like that in other articles. I haven't looked at Michael Jackson recently, but last time I checked, it didn't say that Michael never did anything inappropriate when he was sharing a bed with children, even though the court found him not guilty. The article on Roy Whiting, last time I looked, didn't say that he killed Sarah Payne, merely that he was found guilty of killing her. As far as I can tell, Terri Schiavo page logic (the courts ruled it, therefore it's true, therefore it's neutral) has absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia policy. However, because of the 3RR rule – a rule I agree with and abide by – there is a (presumably unintended) Wikipedia policy that these things will get in to articles if most of the editors support a particular POV.

I have been arguing for months about the bias in this article. Examples of my objections were that the article claimed, as if these things were verifiable facts, that Michael had woken that night from the sound of Terri collapsing, that he had immediately called emergency services, that she had had bulimia, that she was in a PVS, that Michael had started studying nursing because he wanted to learn how to take care of Terri, that he had gradually come to accept that his wife wouldn't recover, etc. I have stuck around on a talk page that was filled with foul language, abuse, and ridicule – not usually directed against me, but certainly often directed against people who were making the arguments that I was making. I have found it depressing and wearing. No other Wikipedia page I've worked on has been like this. However, I believe that partly as a result of my persistence, the article is less biased than it was. I have never argued that it should say that she was not it a PVS, or that she collapsed under mysterious circumstances while alone with her husband, etc.

To get back to the bulimia issue – I made the point [12] that the bulimia bit did not belong in the article after the autopsy report had said that it was unlikely that she had had it. (As far as I can recall, my comment was never responded to, and was eventually archived.) Remember the report gave not only physical reasons for that conclusion, but also reasons based on evidence that she had eaten normally and that she would not have had an opportunity to vomit after dinner that night – or something like that, but I don't have it in front of me now. I imagine an official report like that carries more weight than a newspaper article. In any case, that newspaper article given as a source requires registration.

My suggestion – get rid of the bulimia claim in the article, except to say that her husband and his lawyers argued that she had had bulimia, a court had agreed, her parents had disputed it, and the autopsy report said that bulimia was unlikely.

Instead of trying to suppress the information that she was put into a hospice when she wasn't dying, let's try to find a neutral way of providing that information in a NPOV way. In other words, get rid of "editor's voice" saying things like "normally legally reserved for" etc. Let's say that she was put in a hospice. Her parents objected. They claimed that etc. They were parties to the court cases; we weren't.

From a very tired Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but for the specific dispute at hand it's not suppressing anything if the thing simply isn't important enough to cover in the article. I'm about as neutral on this topic as they come, but the article is too long, and that fact adds very little important. Detailed material needs to be moved to sub articles that are focused on given specific topics. That way no material is lost, but this article can remain the proper overview that it should. - Taxman ^Talk 18:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article is too long. I'm not particularly attached to the bit about the hospice being "normally legally" reserved for terminally-ill patients (and I wouldn't word it that way, anyway). The point I was making was that there is a tendency (since most of the editors of this article personally and even passionately sided with Michael Schiavo) to supress information that might reflect badly on Michael. I can even recall – but I can't find the diff right now – that one of them argued a few months ago that the article shouldn't mention that Michael Schiavo was living with another woman, since the article is about Terri not about Michael!!!

I hope I'm not misquoting anyone, but I think it was either patsw or Jdavidb (it could even have been both) who argued in April that if a piece of information favours the Schindlers' side, people say that there's no room, because the article is bloated, but if it favours Michael's side, room is somehow found for it. That has been my impression at times.

I would personally vote for keeping the hospice information in the article, but worded in a more neutral way. However, the article is too long, so I'd be happy to have it taken out if it's taken out as part of an honest effort to shorten the article. That would mean that other things would have to go as well, perhaps starting with the accounts of her getting up to vomit after meals. The most official source – the autopsy report – disputes it; the Miami Herald article link is a dead link. There are lots of other things that should go as well.

I apologize for making my last post so long. It was partly because there is now an article RfC, so I wanted to make a statement about issues that have bothered me for some time. Apart from the hospice issue and the bulimia issue, is there anything else that I'm missing from this long talk page? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

sigh - You know I can't even read past your first bullet point up there, as the situation is so horrendous. Hats off to the people who can NPOV this etc. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments from Gordon

It appears from my reading of this entire page (yes, I do read every single diff), that Both Marskell and Taxman are saying that I am insisting on the current version of the hospice paragraph (the one that uses the "typically legally" language), which says (in the strong editor's voice) that the hospice is "typically only legally for terminal folk" or to that effect. Now, while that sentence is not inaccurate, I agree that it could be construed as POV, and I'm upset that I have been slandered -er, libeled, and my character defamed by having been misquoted:

I do not insist that the current (locked) version be kept: In case you haven't read my posts, I have offered a compromise, which grants FuelWagon's insistent request to quote only the major players, and I have further agreed to not insist that the language describes Terri as " widely described as the 'brain-damaged Florida woman'."

However, we have Marskell and Taxman simply suggesting that this paragraph be deleted in its entirety, with no mention of the hospice. Let me introduce you to a novel word: NO.

I'm not being mean, but here's the deal: The main point about Terri was that she was this somehow-famous woman in a hospice; but, really, why did she go there? Were there any objections? As Ann has eloquently pointed out in the past, the article never tells us why, and, no, this doesn't belong in some side-article; it is the main point of the issue: Why in the Sam Hill did this woman get in a hospice? What were the arguments of both sides to this issue?

The article absolutely has to tell us somewhere (in chronological order of event reporting) that she was placed in a hospice, and the events surrounding it; The article never did that until I came on the scene, lol. (No, I'm not claiming special intelligence or expertise, but I know a glaring omission when I see one.)

Homework to any editor who wants to discuss this matter: Read Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Gordon.27s_objections, where I show the current version, my proposed suggestion, and describe how Wagon's version is similar but lacking one key element on this key hospice topic. THEN, look about two-thirds the way down in the Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Break_Down section to see my ADDITIONAL compromise, OK? Then we can talk.

Additionally, I think Wagon is about right on the intro: It can be tweaked, as others suggests, but we don't have to put it all in the first sentence. Oh, by the way, we did have a good intro, with the "these things sparked debate" type intro, which was accepted by a narrow concensus in the past, but Wagon, on the losing side of the vote, kept arguing and reverting, and finally got that section deleted. You can look Talk:Terri_Schiavo#FuelWagon to see what happened, and that is why I am not fully confident that this concensus will be honored. However, I do NOT disagree with Wagon on explaining the other points of view. If you actually read my proposed replacement, you should see that it has this sentence: "The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C." OK, now, is it OK that the truth is told about me when I do not object to having other points of view being reported? I'm easy-going, and open to discussing matters, but please do not misquote me; With all due respect, the hospice placement is perhaps one of the key issues in this whole matter: THAT is what precipitated and caused the debate about her; it should be reported, along with the reactions by ALL the parties, not just one or the other, and NO, it won't take twenty-paragraphs to do: My proposal is pretty short, he heh, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, PS: I am open to removing some non-relevant material, such as her cat and stuffed animals, if you know what I mean; Chill out, actually read what we write, and we can work on the few disagreements, ok?--GordonWattsDotCom 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

THE Voting Booth on SEVERAL POINTS OF CONCERN--DISPUTE

Reporting hospice placement: Key event or not?

The Second item is a surprise to me: I thought it was apparent that we needed to mention the key events, but apparently there is dispute. (Notes: Please keep this section clear of comments; We can talk in a section below it -please only place votes here.)

• SHOULD the description of events tell Wikipedia readers that Terri Schiavo was placed into a hospice at all, or, instead, should we keep it a secret?

(In alpha-numeric order, here are the current editors -did I leave anyone out? YES, moderators get to vote - especially if it's a tie situation.)

• Ann Heneghan: It appears you are voting YES, but this is a tentative vote unless otherwise noted: "In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice...a very tired Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Ed Poor, e.g., Uncle Ed:
• Fernando Rizo:
• Fuel Wagon: Wagon, you appear to be voting "YES." "Gordon, my proposal mentions the transfer to the hospice as well... FuelWagon 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Gordon Watts: My vote is "YES."--GordonWattsDotCom 21:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marskell: No Marskell 08:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pat Sweeney, e.g., Patsw: It looks like you are voting "YES" here: "Either the Schindler's raised an objection to Michael's guardianship over the hospice move as violating state law or regulation or they didn't. This is a fact or it's not a fact. The reader can judge if this indicates a frivolous claim on the part of the Schindlers, or if it demonstrates an abuse of the court's discretion as to what weight it would give laws to protect patient rights from an abusive guardian. patsw 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Taxman: It appears you are voting "NO," based on your comments from this talk page: "A detail such as the hospice not supposed to be able to take here is incredible minutae, and establishes nothing either way...Taxman Talk 01:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)" -- and, in your answer to "What to mention in the section about hospice transfer, if approved by above vote," you answer: "nothing, this and other minutae need to be covered in subarticles if at all. Summarize and remove other material also as needed to balance and make room for more important overiew and implication summaries. - Taxman Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)"
  • Analysis: It seems that the vast majority supporting the claim that Terri's transfer was a key event that needs to be mentioned, but I do not know if I have the official "power" to open and close votes -as some have hinted.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What to mention in the section about hospice transfer, if approved by above vote

This is the Third item, in this series of requests to vote:

• Ann Heneghan: You said "In my opinion, the article should definitely mention that she was transferred to a hospice, and that the Schindlers, their lawyers, and the organizations that supported them argued that this was improper – they may even have said illegal; let's find the reference...Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)"
• Ed Poor, e.g., Uncle Ed: ?
• Fernando Rizo: ?
• Fuel Wagon: From this diff, you say: "In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael's guardianship. Their new evidence ostensibly reflected adversely on Michael Schiavo’s role as guardian, citing "that he had relationships with other women, that he had allegedly failed to provide appropriate care and treatment for Theresa, that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [17] bullet 31), and that he was no longer competent to represent Theresa’s best interests." [24] By this time, while still legally married to Terri, Michael was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, with whom he had fathered two children. Michael denied wrongdoing in this matter, stating that the Schindlers had actively encouraged him to "get on with his life" and date since 1991. Michael said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (to not be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out."
• Gordon Watts: In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [12] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [13], amid objections by her family [14] that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [15] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. I am compromising with Wagon and quoting only the major players --and striking out the "widely described as" language --and also proposing to NOT use the "typically legally" language. [Maybe add "why" she was transferred from Michael's viewpoint; Adding in views of guardian ad litems and my own view are too much.] NOTE: Wagon's version may look longer, but it is actually half a sentence shorter: He agrees to report about Terri's parents' concerns of the financial mismanagement, but not report their concerns that it was illegal at all.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Marskell: "...amid objections by her family. --> This bullet and the petition generally were dismissed by the court." Marskell 08:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pat Sweeney, e.g., Patsw: ?
• Taxman: nothing, this and other minutae need to be covered in subarticles if at all. Summarize and remove other material also as needed to balance and make room for more important overiew and implication summaries. - Taxman ^Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: It looks like Ann agrees with my view to report both major objections to the transfer -and Wagon wants to omit mention of one; Please note that I have agreed to remove the "typically legally" language, and I recall "Ann's comments" that she agrees with me --and Wagon agrees with us on this one point, so "typically legally" looks like it will be voted down.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the additional input/participation and votes from editors.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Extra stuff to go, reduce article size

This is the Fourth item, in this series of requests to vote: This section is ready to go, but we aren't. We need to address the first three areas above, and then we can discuss and vote on things that really are unnecessary fluff -and bloat.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving on

I requested an unlock for this page which has yet to be acted on. Perhaps too hasty, but it can't be held hostage as has been pointed out repeatedly. I want to suggest this:

• Gordon has two edits on this page in any 24 hour period. Any edit counts and you cannot list anything as minor. Edits cannot involve more than two third-level sections (or second-level if not further sub-divided).
• Gordon has one talk addition in any 24 hour period. It cannot exceed six lines on the talk page (about 120 words).

Please support or oppose

• I support discussion about --and voting on --the major points of contention. Since no one did, then I ranted and raved, asking (begging) people to discuss & VOTE -and they did NOT --they merely talked about it. I've removed your inappropriate language, and replaced it with a euphemism; While this is wrong, I can sense and feel your frustration, but you are blaming me for the page lock when it was partly precipitated by FuelWagon; With only one of us or the other, it would not have happened, but you are wrong to characterize me as always reverting; I rarely revert, and save that for important matters. Now, if you want me to stop ranting and raving, and using up space on the page, please vote on the matters above. Just like in Board meetings, a person can propose a vote, and, if it is seconded by another person --it can go to a vote. Since all the matters in my "voting section" above are seconded by others as issues of importance (whether or not they agree with me on how to vote), then it's time for you ro vote more --discuss more --talk about these distractions less. You want me to take less space up in talk -I fully agree, but it's your move. You have talked ABOUT fixing the problem, but you have done little to fix it, forcing me to sort-of "guess" at your positions on certain matters. Let's get the show on the road, and we can come to concensus on these issues -or determine that concensus can't be reached. Now, do your part to contribute: I've gone to extensive trouble to set up the voting booth. By the way, Marskell, --in spite of your long-winded anger, and LACK OF VOTING after much discussion, thank you for at least not defacing my voting booth above. Now, it is your civic duty to vote: I've placed "tentative" voted for you, but we've already found out the hard way that I can't read your mind, and I apologize big-time for misrepresenting you and Taxman. Now do your civic duty -do or do not -there is no "try." I'm finished commenting for now -it's your move.--GordonWattsDotCom 00:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Naturally this is informal but if Gordon agrees than other observing editors can recommend a block to an admin if it's violated.

If this seems to single out Gordon, well his contributions are singular. He regularaly floods the talk page with (literally) thousands of words and he does revert to the max in the article with knowledge of no consensus on his points.

Plz, stop and consider because I can guess your rebuttals Gordon. First, limited edits is in your interest because it gives you a break and allows you to make pointed rather than on-the-fly changes. If you feel this should apply to FuelWagon as well, fair enough I will support that; I do believe FW's replies were effectively always a response to you so I see your repeated editing as the issue at the hand. As far as the disputed sentence goes, leave it. I will edit it, someone can revert it and...and we need to move on with this page, so f--- lets stop spinning the wheels over something talk cannot seem to resolve. The sense of ownership is getting to be too much.

Finally, I'm considering this an attempted intervention to avoid an RfA.. And please, Gordon don't flood this with commentary to make it unreadable. This is a suggestion to move on—respond but try to be brief so that others can understand. Marskell 23:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, people can't spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on wikipedia, so yelling at them for "not voting" when you just put up your request for a vote a few hours ago is an unwarranted attack. I actually don't have time to respond beyond that right now. FuelWagon 01:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have reason to yell, but I did NOT yell for the most part. (Yelling is done with capitol letters, LIKE THIS!!) Why do I have justification to yell and get upset? Because people really did have a chance to vote, by making a voting template like I did -and furthermore, Marskell saw the voting template and chose not to vote, instead, placing comments about other matters under the template. The page was protected in the "Revision as of 08:59, 7 September 2005," and yet, over five days later, still few if any votes; I'm trying to keep us from spinning our wheels, and, instead, get constructive action like Jackson, dig? "I actually don't have time to respond beyond that right now." OK, take your time, no problemo. PS: While I feel justified in getting upset, I am trying to be polite and helpful, so please don't think I'm super mad at anyone, you or fellow editors -frustrated, yes --mad, no.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think that if everyone calms down and try to explain what we even are trying to decide here. While I was asked to come here and see what is going on, but I am just lost with all of this debate. But if this is about Terri being in a "hospice," that term was used by the news. Maybe, what we could do is just write an whole article about the hospice debate and look at relevant laws surrounding it. Zach (Sound Off) 02:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Zach, please read out talk page here, and then check out: Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Reporting_hospice_placement:_Key_event_or_not.3F.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• yes, please. Limiting Gordon's voluminous edits would help everyone including him and the article. But give him 5 posts a day 50 words each. Then he'll have to think more whether what he is adding has any value. Also, I suggest we impliment an immediate 1 revert max per day for everyone or else a 24 hour block, and with that I'm prepared to un protect immediately. This article cannot be held hostage like this any longer. - Taxman ^Talk 02:55, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking time to vote on some matters, Taxman -even if you disagree with me; Also, the page is not held hostage by me (not that you accused me; you didn't, but I wish to clarify this), but rather it is "held hostage" by the actionable dispute between me and another editor. So, please don't single me out, as if I'm the prime mover or anything. But we seem to be getting close to an agreement.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, do you or do you not agree to:

• Two edits on this page in any 24 hour period. Any edit counts and you cannot list anything as minor. Edits cannot involve more than two third-level sections (or second-level if not further sub-divided).

Per Taxman:

• One revert only and this will apply to everyone.
• Five talk posts of no more than 50 words.

Again, yes or no so that this can be opened. Marskell 09:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you agree to such restrictions on how often you can edit?? By the way, since you are so stressed out that you don't want a reply to your message on your talk page, please rest assured that I answered you here in the Revision as of 09:18, 13 September 2005. I've archived my page, to reduce clutter, and you would miss it. If you don't want me to reply, then don't post something objectionable: If everyone had come to concensus a week ago, I would have "zero" posts in the talk page; if threatening a person with limited edits is not something you'd like done to yourself, so, instead, try persuasion. It's more effective, and also, earn our respect, like I have: I've spent untold hours not only editing the page, but personally traveling to Terri Schiavo's grave site -and creating the Terri_Schiavo#Notes_and_references section all by myself -and repairing it when others got the links mixed up. Read my words carefully, because typing on my end is even harder than reading on your end. (Besides, when I post a reply to you, others will be bound to see it, so you ought not to miss out.) If you think I'm too harsh, maybe you can travel out to the grave site and create a "references" section --and set up and manage a "vote" section, etc. You have it easy: Chill out and relax. So, would you like to have your edits limited, eh?--GordonWattsDotCom 09:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So no then? Marskell 10:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're serious, then I will agree to this -if it should apply to all of us. However, the moderators must agree to this as well, but think about it -you might limit yourself too much. OK: Yes, if "Two edits on this page in any 24 hour period," etc. applies to all of us -we can try out this new method: If it works, you will be famous for the "Marskell Method."--GordonWattsDotCom 10:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree to it for myself. Marskell 11:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree to it, and 2 edits a day is probably too little if someone is actually improving, but we can expand that if the article is improving. Lets also make it clear that changing the meaning of a paragraph back to substantially what you wrote before is considered a revert for the purposes here. Holding moderators to this standard isn't a good idea because someone's got to police the thing, but so be it. - Taxman ^Talk 11:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does text like this keep disappearing? (And why readers cannot trust this article to be accurate and NPOV.)

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife: through sickness and health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

That's Michael Schiavo's testimony in November 5, 1992 and the testimony of rehabilitation specialists testifying on his behalf that Terri would have a normal life span led the jury to award close to $1 million for Terri and about $400,000 to Michael.

That's a fact. It's significant. And it's important to establish that Michael was of one frame of mind in November 10, 1992, and in a different frame of mind on February 14, 1993 when he instructs "Do Not Resuscitate" to be put on Terri's chart.

August 1993 is when Terri had her life threatening the urinary tract infection. It's one of the dates that Wolfson got wrong. It was corrected once, but that correction was undone. Michael Schiavo testifies to attempting to prevent the treatment of the infection in the November 1993 guardianship case.

With all the rewrites and reorgs, it's like magic -- facts and corrections just get dropped from the article. The legality of the hospice transfer is insignificant next to dropping the "vows" quote. patsw 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

We can add this to the list of things on which to vote, if you like; please make sure I voted correctly for you above -on the other issues; I have no problem with adding this quote -if you can "source" it with a link to verify is accuracy. Then, after the article's unlocked, add it, and if there's a dispute, we can come here and vote on it (hopefully next time without having to wait five days for people to log in and properly count votes).

Once that's done, assuming there were sufficient people to vote, we can write a list of "agreements," and if any bozo's dumb or brave enough to try and violate the concensus, then I can have a talk with User:Jimbo; he only works about 60-70 miles from where I live. Additionally, I have connection's with Jimbo's boss, God, and I can pull rank if we need further assistance. PS: I'm not bragging by "dropping 'big' names" here (e.g., Jimbo and The Almighty), but if I'm right about enforcing valid concensus, then I should not be wrong to be bold and ask for assistance from the powers-that-be.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The testimony is in the malpractice suit section. Cries of "conspiracy" to hide it are unfounded. Michael gives that testimony during the malpractice suit in answer to questions as to why he started going to nursing school, so that's where it belongs in the article, in the malpractice suit section, in the context of teh question that he was asked by the lawyer. FuelWagon 13:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So you don't have an objection to restoring the "vows" quote? You no longer object to the correction of the date of her urinary tract infection? If so, this is progress. patsw 14:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First, the date of the DNR seems problematic. Guardian ad litem Pearse reports the DNR was filed early 1994 (on page 5 of 13). Guardian ad litem Wolfson reports that the DNR was filed "early 1994" as well (page 10 of 38). Do you have something that shows both guardian ad litems got the date wrong?

Second, are Michael's vows specifically mentioned in a court motion by the Schindlers? If not, I see little reason to include them in teh article other than for emotional pleading. If people are simply trying to convict Michael in the court of public opinion of breaking his vows, then I oppose mentioning them in the article. If his vows are specifically mentioned in a legal court motion, then I'd like to see a URL to the motion, and we can discuss. FuelWagon 16:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Before we get into "do I have something", do you believe the urinary tract infection was in 1994 and not 1993? Do you believe the first guardianship case was heard starting in 1994 and not 1993?

Of course, the vows testimony from the malpractice case came up in later pleadings by the Schindlers as evidence of Michael's failure to disclose to them and to the court Terri's wishes. Do you believe it didn't? patsw 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a dispute about the date of the DNR. I have read the wolfson and pearse reports a couple of different times, mainly because all of the guardian ad litems are appointed by the courts to have Terri's best wishes at heart, without bringing their own personal baggage. I have skimmed other sources. Do you have a URL that disputes the date?

As for the vows, it doesn't matter what I believe, it matters if they were specifically invoked by the Schindlers for some reason or other, in what context, and what the various other POV's were around that, such as the guardian ad litems and the court. the guardian ad litem reports don't mention Michael's vows that I recall (it's been a while since I read them though). Do you have a URL to a motion by the Schindlers that calls out the wedding vows? FuelWagon 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What you believe matters because you are acting as the gatekeeper to edits to this article. It's helpful to know what you think believe because if you believe it, it goes into the article and if you don't, then I know that I have to overcome your objections as well as satisify the usual wikiness requirements. So getting an edit into this article where you don't believe it presents a unique challenge in the Wikipedia to any editor.

The 1993 date for the bladder/urinary tract infection and the Michael's testimony that he sought to allow it to progress untreated to hatsten Terri's death is in University of Miami Ethics Program which is already cited in the article. In his testimony, Michael Schiavo refers to it as UTI and is asked to define the term. Clearly the infection of which he speaks did not occur in 1994.

The May 2001 lawsuit gives July 1993 as the date of the do not recusitate order at Sabel Palms. Some statements to the media from the Schindlers put the date at February 1993, but I've not been able to find a petition that gives that date online, nor an assertion from Michael's side that the first do not recusitate order was in 1994. Because several of the nurses at Palm Gardens gave testimony in later cases, the 1994 do not recusitate order at that facility is perhaps better known and that is what confused the GAL's. As for the dates, there are 2 infections in 2 facilities in 2 different years (1993 and 1995) and not a single infection (1994) as some timelines incorrectly have it listed (perhaps using the Wikipedia article as a reliable source).

The 1992 vows testimony come back in the 1993 guardianship case where Michael Schiavo admits to intimate relations with other women. These women, of course, have names: Cindy Brashers Shook and Trudy Capone. I don't believe it is important to mention their specific names in the article. I expect books written on the case to be more objective and comprehensive, and they will include facts such as these which were taken out of the article under Fuel Wagon's editorial control. The vows quote is important not only because it is featured in the Schindler petitions, but because there was a consensus to include it earlier, it's not legal, political, or medical minutiae, and there is wide and frequent mention of it in the public discussion of the case as evidence of Michael's duplicity. patsw 01:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I act as gatekeeper to unfounded accusations entering the article, to cries of witchcraft being inserted without any other POV's being reported on that same accusation, of that I am guilty. This entire story is 90% "he said, she said", and NPOV is the only way it will ever find balance. I am sick of "original research" being inserted, of charges being invented by editors and inserted in the article that don't report what the actual players said, but rather report what the editor think was wrong.

two infections, exactly one year apart, two different locations? I'll have to read through the links you provide. What would clearly prove this isn't people getting the years wrong would be a motion by the Schindlers in 1993 protesting the first lack of infection treatment and a new motion by the Schindlers in 1994 protesting the lack of infection treatment. Or a motion by the Schindlers that lists a lack of treatment on two different occaisions, 1993, and 1994. If there were an error on a motion submitted to the court, then Michael would have a chance to dispute it. If he didn't dispute it, then it could be reported as fact. I've never heard anyone say there were two infections before now. FuelWagon 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Two infections are already in the record: The 1993 (Sabel Palms) infection came up in the 1993 guardianship trial. The 1995 (Palm Gardens) infection is in the public statements of the Schindler's and the Iyer affidavit submitted to the court which Greer disallowed as untimely in support of an order to vacate judgment. We don't have the medical records of course, and we don't have an explicit denial of the 1995 infection on Michael's part, nor an assertion that there was only one infection where he intervened in insisting that it not be treated.

It's an interesting bifucation of the record: Articles approaching this from the Schinder's POV and using the timeline according to them, have two infections (1993,1995) while articles approaching this from Michael's POV use the Wolfson (2003) report with its one 1994 infection. Wolfson has the date of the malpractice award as 1993 when the award was determined by trial and paid to Michael in 1992. I don't know why Wolfson got it wrong but his dates for the award and (first) infection are demonstrably incorrect. patsw 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that there are two guardian ad litem reports that say 1994. So I'd have to see something as official as two court reports that say 1993. For example, in the motion filed by the schindlers, it says "Defendant Schiavo admitted under oath during his deposition on November 19, 1993, that he had given the aforesaid orders." What was the court response to this motion? If the courts acknowledge teh date mismatch, that's one thing. If the courts dismiss the motion as being wrong, that's another. Do you have a URL to the court's response? An even better solution might be a URL to the November 19, 1993 deposition, which should establish the time of Michael's testimony as part of court record. It may be that wikipedia can't say the DNR was 1993 or 1994, but only report that the guardian ad litems said it was 1994 and the Schindlers say it was 1993/1995. FuelWagon 06:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)