Talk:Terri Schiavo/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Gordon's proposal

GordonWattsDotCom has proposed replacing the above paragraph with the version here:

In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" [1] at the heart of this legal battle, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice [2], amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [3] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [4]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.


FuelWagon's proposal

FuelWagon opposes the paragraph that GordonWatts wishes to add and has proposed adding a line to one of the already existing paragraphs (the bolded text):

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" [5] 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.

FuelWagon's objections

The Schindler's challenged Michael's guardianship in 2000. Bullet 31 of the motion says that Terri's transfer to the hospice after it was clear that she was not terminal was wasting Terri's assets, and was one of their reason's for removing Michael as guardian. The court's dismissed the motion, and Michael remained guardian. The court appointed guardian ad litems never mentioned Terri's transfer to a hospice as being an issue. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What Gordon has done is create a whole new paragraph to introduce a "fact" that Florida state law says it is illegal for a hospice to admit a nonterminal patient and federal law prohibits a hospice from receiving federal funds if they admit a non-terminal patient. But the courts didn't find Terri's transfer to be illegal, the hospice was never charged and they never had their funds cut. Michael was never charged and the motion to remove him as guardian was tossed and he remained Terri's guardian. Therefore Gordon's paragraph gives undue weight to the law, hospices, and terminal patients, and leaves the implied sense that it has something to do with Terri. The only thing it has to do with Terri is that the Schindlers brought it up in a motion (as bullet 31 of 50 bullets total), and the courts dismissed the motion. Introducing an entire paragraph about an aspect of the law when the motion was tossed, no charges were filed, no one was convicted, and the hospice funds were not cut, only serves give undue weight to the law, implying the law was broken. It was not. FuelWagon 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to point out to Gordon that this article is just not an appropriate place to reargue the case for keeping Schiavo alive.
Can't we just stick to saying what happened? Let's leave the obiter dicta out of it, and just stick what happened in Schiavo's case. Gordon, FW is right on this one: you're trying to bias the article by unduly weighting a discussion of hospices etc, which is not of relevance to the fact of what happened: a motion was brought and the courts dismissed it. Your (and my and anyone else's) views on whether the courts were right to do so are beyond the point (although, yes, not entirely besides it). Grace Note 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Grace N., I'm not rearguing anything. Have you even read this talk page? I'm merely suggesting reporting on the actions and events -and reactions -by the major players. Additionally, Wagon's version is very similar to mine, omitting only two elements, and I address that as well. Please read this entire page -and then give me your word that you've read it --and then I'll discuss this matter with you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are, Gordon. I don't have to read the whole talk page to see that from your proposed paragraph. I think FuelWagon's version is entirely more suitable. It's not inconceivable that I'd take your part in other disputes, but it's inconceivable that I'd agree that we should include interpretive material that is intended to sway a reader to a particular understanding of the facts. Grace Note 07:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The proposed replacement I add only reports on what the players said; I now wonder if you did not even read my proposed edit here? ! Grace N., did you even read my proposed edit? It is like 2 sentences long, lol --GordonWattsDotCom 07:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Gordon's objections

Gordon can put a couple paragraph explanation here.

Well, there are three (3) versions of the paragraph in question:

1) The existing one:

  • 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]

2) My proposed replacement: (I fixed the small spelling typo, lol, below)

  • 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 {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.

3) Wagon's version is very similar to mine, but he omits either version of the paragraph above and interjects this sentence into an existing paragraph)

  • (according to the Schindlers, transferring Schiavo to a "hospice after it was clear that she was not “terminal” within Medicare guidelines" [16] bullet 31)

Therefore we can see that his version leaves out two important things. As Ann has pointed out, we need to tell when Terri entered into the hospice, and Wagon is leaving this out. Also, he would report only the attorney's objection on Federal grounds (financial mismanagement), not on state grounds (not allowed to even be placed in hospice).

He and Grace Note cloud the issue by bringing up "Gordon's views" (or words to that effect). Who cares about Gordon's views: Wagon has repeatedly said that we should report on what the major players said, and this is merely doing just that. If you don't believe that, please read this page -before it grows long like Pinocchio’s nose and becomes unmanageable in length to read.

My proposal would not harm anything -and it reports the various objections of the parties. I have no problem including the reactions of the other major players (Mike Schiavo, Court, Guardians, etc.) if they can be quoted correctly and sourced with some link.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Break Down

Let's break this down into its component points, before trying to put it back together without bias:

  1. There was a guardianship challenge in April 2000.
  2. Media reports at the time called Terry a "brain-damaged Florida woman".
  3. A hospice in Pinellas County, Florida admitted Terry.
  4. Terry's parents (or "family"?) objected to the admission.
  5. The objection centered on the issue of whether Terry Schiavo was (A) terminal or (B) non-terminal
  6. State law said the facility could admit only terminal patients
  7. Federal law said that if the facility admitted a non-terminal patient, then it would be ineligible to take federal funds

Gordon, are these the points you are making?

Yes. The admin locking the page suggested I not interspace answers like I'm doing here, but I will respectfully disagree on this one minor point. He suggests I leave chronologically superior comments intact, but anyhow... to answer your question, yes.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, which of these points do you agree with / dispute? Uncle Ed 14:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"There was a guardianship challenge in April 2000."

not disputed, already in the article FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Media reports at the time called Terry a "brain-damaged Florida woman"."

irrelevant. I don't know why Gordon insists on inserting this here except possibly to say that Terri was "brain damaged" rather than "terminal". The introduction says Terri was brain damaged. This is simply Gordon's way of saying, "she wasn't terminal, she was just injured", which then goes back to his bias that tries to suggest that terri wasn't terminal, that the transfer to the hospice was illegal. Except that this was brought before the courts as part of the guardianship challenge and the courts tossed it. And the guardian ad litems appointed by the courts never reported this transfer as being a problem deserving the removal of Michael as guardian, the revocation of federal funds from the hospice, or anyone's arrest. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, if you want to strike out the "brain-damaged" description, and nothing else, I will allow it as a compromise -but she was known as this, and you are coloring the issue.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"A hospice in Pinellas County, Florida admitted Terry."

not disputed, it is in my proposed solution as well, I just put it in a short parenthetical statement. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Terry's parents (or "family"?) objected to the admission."

not disputed. it is in my proposed solution as well.

"The objection centered on the issue of whether Terry Schiavo was (A) terminal or (B) non-terminal"

well, I don't know if it centered on it. the motion says that the transfer to a hospice was a misuse of assets, but terminal is part of the wording in the motion. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
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 {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}} that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C.
Comments: I scratched out that one part per above comments, but the language, as shown by the court documents, indicate all else I allege was correct. I think you're stalling until the google cache of the official site is outdated, and then I think you hope to allege that Liberty site is not official, but I will not brook this, because I quoted valid sources.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't dispute that your reporting of the law is correct. I dispute putting in a separate paragraph about the law, implying the law was broken, when the courts and guardians don't consider the transfer to have been a problem. read up on "undue weight". FuelWagon 18:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I imply nothing. You infer or read too much into it. I made my compromise, and it stands. I have spoken.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It is undue weight to a topic the courts and guardians found irrelevant. FuelWagon 21:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"State law said the facility could admit only terminal patients. Federal law said that if the facility admitted a non-terminal patient, then it would be ineligible to take federal funds"

not disputed as fact, but disputed as undue weight. This doesn't need a whole paragraph explaining the law, with the implication that the law was broken, when the rest of the facts are that the court never convicted anyone of breaking the law. FuelWagon 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"Weight?" That paragraph above is not too heavy; it merely reports facts. I took out the objectionable part, but a good reporter leaves the essentials.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

From reviewing this I don't see the need for the paragraph at all. That the facility wasn't supposed to allow a non terminal patient establishes nothing important and is an example of the extraordinary minutiae that this article suffers from. I'm willing to listen if the implications are a lot more important than I understand, but other than that the paragraph in either form is not valuable. An article should not include every single verifiable fact, but instead the most important facts, in a balanced way that portray the issue in the clearest way possible. Besides, on a practical matter, Gordon, all you have to do is agree not to add the paragraph until you have consensus to add it, and the article can be unprotected--an important goal in its own right. - Taxman Talk 14:01, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I’m lost

i cannot follow the conversations here. i do not know what exactly the issues are at hand. what is being debated? what needs to be resolved? Kingturtle 09:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My original proposal was here, but I compromised here by allowing a scratch out of one sentence; Wagon wants to do this, which leaves out the reporting of the Schindlers on the State law issue, and I think both cites objections of their lawyer should be reported; I source them, after all.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Gordon inserted a bunch of POV stuff, including two links to his own vanity sites, and some other stuff. I started taking the stuff out. He ran to an admin and got the page locked, and currently insists on keeping a POV paragraph in the article. It is explained here. FuelWagon 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The core problem in my view has been the resistance expressed in nuisance-level tactics to suppress the mention in the article of claims which the Schindlers made unsuccessfully in court. The current editing dispute is yet another instance of this. The meta-dispute which I thought was resolved a long time ago was that neutral point of view included a presentation of Schindler petitions to the court and not merely the winner's point of view.
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)
Wow. That's one way of putting it. Another way would be that instead of this being about the "winners" writing history, this is basically another example of the Schindlers crying "Witch!" and none of the evidence supports it. None of the evidence supports it. It was also bullet 31 of 50 bullets in their motion to remove michael as guardian, and if we give EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 50 bullets the same weight that Gordon wants to give this one, then we'll need an article just for this motion to remove Michael as guardian. This is why the article is already so big, because Gordon and others find one tiny bit of an accusation and they want to dedicate an entire subsection to it. If Gordon's paragraph is inserted describing the law regarding hospices, then I will have to add the countering points of view saying that the court never found the law to have been broken to remove Michael as guardian, never found enough cause to charge michael with breaking the law, and the hospice never had its funding cut for breaking that law. As it is, Gordon's paragraph only presents the Schindler's point of view around this, saying the transfer was against the law. If it goes in, all the points of view go in, and the article continues to bloat. FuelWagon 15:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
In April 2000, in the midst of the guardianship challenge, Schiavo, was admitted to a Pinellas County, Florida hospice, amid objections by her family {{ref}LibertyLink.AndersonMotion}}.
  • widely described as the "brain-damaged Florida woman" Redundant and apropos of nothing.
  • that this was a facility which is was prohibited by state law from admitting nonterminal patients [14] and prohibited by federal law from taking federal funds if it did admit nonterminal patient [15]. The court eventually ruled A-B-and-C. . Per FuelWagon. Bullet 31 of 50. Gordon unless you can show that there was something particularly vital about this one objection, or that it was the centerpiece of the petition, I must agree it doesn't belong. Marskell 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Before you take sides, please note that you misquoted me: I agree that the article should (ideally) not say this or that about the hospice, but I am not asking that re report this. See Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Gordon.27s_objections, under the second paragraph, and note that I later agreed to drops the part about "widely described as" --you as disagreeing with the 1st paragraph, and I am saying, "no," I am advocating the second one at that link, my "proposed replacement."--GordonWattsDotCom 18:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
But you're still saying we should include information about what seems like an incredibly minor point. I've yet to see any substantiation on why that point is important enough to cover. Please read my post above, it may have gotten lost. If the issue is as Patsw says below, then simply remove some minutiae about Michael's claims, etc. The article needs to be trimmed down. The way to do that is to move material to articles on more specific topics and leave only higher level summaries here. That is the Wikipedia:Summary style we keep telling you should be used here. - Taxman Talk 12:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Fuel Wagon's reply shows why I (among others) had to withdraw from editing the article.
  • He justifies his editing with his point of view regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. His point of view is irrelevant. The Schindlers claimed that the transfer was improper and a reason to remove guardianship from Michael. That's the fact.
  • His claim of bloat was one that was made to me back in April when the article was 1/5 its current size. Yet since then material supporting Michael's POV never seemed to trigger the bloat objection. One can almost always predict when there will be a bloat objection - it will be in an edit presenting a claim made by the Schindlers.
  • I'm not coordinating with Gordon on this particular edit, but if I were its primary advocate of it, I would state that it is representative of many claims made by the Schindlers in which the court's discretion was abused to unduly favor Michael's side of the case. This particular one is easy to understand: most readers will know that people go to hospices to die within weeks or months from a progressive disease such as cancer (Michael's goal) while people go to long-term medical care facilities or nursing homes to live to the indefinite end of their natural life and to receive care appropriate to their medical condition. (the Schindler's goal) patsw 22:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

WHAT THE (deleted)

I got to this entry through a second entry, and when reading I had NO IDEA WHO SHE REALLY IS?! I mean. Can someone please make this article less of bullshit? I now have (thanks to shitty editors) an idea that you can actually write 900 lines of some random sick person and post every plight and awful moment of one. Pleeeeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Thanks, LOL! I must admit I had a good laugh to that one :). Userfied :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
May I remind you about WP:NPA (no personal attacks) however :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Other than the poor phrasing, it's a good point and one that was raised in the FAC nomination. The article never really establishes why the whole issue is important nor eases a reader into the issue. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The lead should discuss why it became such a big issue and that it was an incredible media frenzy with impassioned pleas, protests, and court appeals. That, in the first paragraph or so, would do a lot to improve the lead section. - Taxman Talk 12:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is the point raised twice above by myself and twice side-tracked by debates over tiny details. The lead sentence or at least paragraph has to establish notability. I take the first sentence of the third para, mention of pronounced government involvement, as the first point of notability. Older versions had an expanded first sentence that was no doubt subject to edit warring. Marskell 12:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a dispute over the answer to this very question: What is significant about the life of Terri Schiavo after February 25, 1990 when she collapsed in her apartment?
  • To Michael Schiavo and George Felos, it's about privacy, protecting guardianship from outside interference, and Terri's wishes.
  • To the Schindler's it's a manipulation of the legal process to kill her daughter.
  • To me, 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. patsw 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I hate to say that I am agreeing with about every editor above. I was about to write a paragraph identical to Marskell but see that he already wrote it. Patsw's points were certainly issues, but they are common issues of almost every court in America. These issues have been going on for centuries, see Robert Todd Lincoln using the courts to force medical care on his former first-Lady mother. But what made her notable was the level of interest created by the media that resulted in special interest group and political involvement in medical decisions. --Noitall 14:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. And I can see we're going to have some fun coming up with an NPOV lead. What that also leads to is the article is improperly focused the same way. It has incredible minutiae of the day to day events, but only the very last sub-section even attempts to give an overview stating that the issue was controversial and why, and what the implications were. That's more important that the content of the 32 court briefs and the play by play of the court battles. - Taxman Talk 14:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
If readers must be told why the person is notable by the first sentence or first paragraph (and assuming they can't possibly wait until the third paragraph of the intro), then the simplest solution would be to put the third paragraph first and do some copyediting to splice it in. This would then mention the four trips to the supreme court, the state laws passed in her name, federal involvement, etc. I question the insistence that an article must report notability in sentence 1, but if that really is the case, then moving paragraph 3 to the beginning would be the solution. FuelWagon 15:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be in the first sentence, but first paragraph is ideal. Also that third paragraph--after the first sentence--is little more than another play by play. It needs to discuss the media firestorm and the implications. State the importance (yes I reallize that is hard to do in an NPOV way), don't just list events. - Taxman Talk 16:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
4 trips to the supreme court, state legislation, congressional subpoena, etc is more than a play by play, it reports the notability. If media and public involvement needs to be reported to make it "notable", then we could add this to the third paragraph:
...and four denials from the United States Supreme Court, among others. [1] The last few months of Shiavo's life saw widespread media attention and public protests outside her hospice that resulted in 47 arrests. On March 18, Schiavo's feeding tube....
Meanwhile, the page is still locked because Gordon still insists on adding another paragraph to the article about the legality of Terri's transfer to the hospice. I proposed adding language from the Schindlers motion in parenthesis of the existing text. Gordon wants a whole paragraph, which would also need to add all the other points of view. If we can get some consensus around that paragraph, then we can get the page unlocked and fix the intro too. FuelWagon 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

notability

On second thought, I retract my suggestion of putting the third paragraph first. It makes no sense to list the court battles, legislation, and other reasons for notability with no context for why they happened. The reason the Schiavo case went to the supreme court four different times is because the Schindlers disagreed with Michael's decisions. Paragraph 1 and 2 show the dispute between the Schindlers and Michael and how it evolved into the Supreme Court visits, florida legislation, and everything else. Simply saying "Terri's story went to the supreme court four times" and listing all the other legal battles has no context as to who the battles were between or what the battles were about. I would like to see a policy rule that says notability must be explained in the first sentence. Otherwise, I'll stand by the intro in its currently locked state that explains Terri's history and establishes notability in paragraph 3. FuelWagon 16:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph. [[6]] This is an obvious point about any descriptive prose you learn in grade eight. Topic sentences should describe topics and all the first sentence tells us now is that she was a woman from Florida.
This is, I believe, an older first sentence (I actually grabbed it off a user page): "Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo(December 3, 1963–March 31, 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to several high-profile court decisions and legislative initiatives and was the object of intense media attention."
Works for me. Marskell 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright. I don't have a problem with the first sentence being swapped out for that one.
Can some folks now weigh in on the article RFC here [7] so that some sort of consensus can be reached so we can unlock the page? FuelWagon 17:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
How about this: woman whose peculiar medical and family circumstances and attendant legal battles fueled intense media attention and led to several high-profile court decisions and involvement by prominent politicians and interest groups. --Noitall 22:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. I'd go with that one too. I think the word "peculiar" could be dropped and/or replaced with something else. It doesn't sound right. the rest of it is fine by me. FuelWagon 03:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)