Talk:Terri Schiavo/archive49

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

It would help me

If you just put down the text or link that is in question. Rather than try to analyze the motives, could you (just) say what the change is, and the pro's and con's? And what is NCG? There is tons to read besides the above argument. Martin | tk 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NCG=North Country Gazette. I see. Martin | tk 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The contentious link in question is any link from the NC Gazette website; Occasionally, it is the only source for info. Generally, it seems to be an accurate news source -like most others commonly cited. Since it is called into question, I think it should only be used when no other source would do, but as a link for opinions and advocacy, it is perfectly appropriate. Even though I would support its use as a news link, under the assumption of accuracy in reporting, the standard is lower for advocacy and commentary (opinion) articles, and this link would be perfectly appropriate for that. The only other remaining criticism commonly raised by editor (such as Calton) is basically that this is not "well-known" or big-time, like the NY Times or something. This criticism should be stricken on sight, since we often-times use small blogs and smaller 'web-newspapers' for sources AND opinion/commentary/advocacy links.
This is not to say that the NCG is the only or the best -only that it should not be treated differentially in a biased manner in comparison to the other links we often use.--GordonWatts 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen articles in the NCG a few times recently, from Google searches. Just ran across one now. It has a definite opinion against Terri's death. It publishes often, and seems to have a done a good deal of work to pull together information to support its raising questions about what happened. Martin | tk 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct -it has a bias, but so does the NY Times, yet we use it; So do the blogs that oppose killing Terri, yet we use them. It seems too legit to quit -at this point: bias does not necessarily spell doom.--GordonWatts 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. As long as one is objective about the facts. This case has split American opinion, deeply and for a long time to come. I believe many will try to dismiss the "other side" because to take them seriously is too scary. Martin | tk 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

dependent on feeding tube

I changed this to "unable to feed herself". If I could revert this I would. You can if you want to. The changed text omits the meaning that she couldn't swallow. "Couldnt feed herself" I would take to mean more that her hand is paralyzed, and is silent on swallowing, leaving open the idea that others might feed her, which was not the case. Martin | tk 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note 9, re: uphold the court ruling that Schiavo would want to cease life support.

I cannot get this footnote to work. I want to read what Greer said - how he phrased his finding. It is note #9 I am assuming. The link to the 6th circuit court works, but the search there on Shiavo does not produce the document. The link to the pdf document hangs. ? Martin | tk 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This later case, looks like it quotes the former case's wording. So I got it. Martin | tk 09:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnote [5] does not support statement re: awareness

The footnote [5], "facts lies and videotape" contains the paragraph:

  • The Schindler family, Pat Anderson, the Schindler lawyer, various vitalist groups, and the two physicians testifying at trial on behalf of the Schindlers, as well as numerous health care professionals signing affidavits who never examined Terri but instead relied on the short videotapes, have consistently maintained the following facts-Terri Schiavo is aware, responsive, follows commands, smiles in response to the family, and has emotions;

to support the statement:

  • Dr. Garcia J. DeSousa, a board-certified neurologist in St. Petersburg, Florida, cared for Schiavo during her initial admission to hospital; both he and Dr. Victor Gambone, an internist and Schiavo family physician, independently made the PVS diagnosis within approximately one year after Schiavo's cardiac arrest. Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Schiavo over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared a very poor opinion about her chances for recovery. No dissent regarding Schiavo's condition or the PVS diagnosis was raised by any parties at this point.[5][6]

The "no dissent" comment might easily be read to mean that the Schindlers did not at that point dissent from the diagnosis of PVS.

Changing statement. 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC) signing Martin | talk • contribs 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Feb 9th The footnotes, [5][6] are both copies of Dr Cranford's testimony titled 'facts,lies, videotape...'. My clarification of "no dissent" to "by all treating neurologists", while accurate, may not be the best change to make. There were four treating neurologists mentioned by Dr Cranford, and all four are mentioned in the prior sentence. To say "all treating neurologists" at this point may lead one to believe that Dr Cranford is referring to more than the four cited about. His paper does contain another slightly broader statement somewnat farther down: From the initial hospitalization in February, 1990, until the present time, there have been no significant changes in Terri’s neurological findings, and nothing in the medical records to suggest any disagreement whatsoever among Terri’s attending and consulting physicians about the underlying diagnosis and prognosis for recovery.
In my opinion, it would be better to use this statement as the basis for the statement footnoted as [5][6]. Martin | talk • contribs 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Early Life : Nutra-systen diet in 1980

paragraph currently says: "She may have developed an eating disorder around this time.[4]"

"A Life That Matters", pg 27 says:

The moment she graduated from high school, she came to me. "I'm ready to lose weight," she said. I took her back to Dr Ickler. He put her on a Nutra-System diet, at that time a new kind of weight-loss regimen, and slowly, gradually, the pounds came off.
Her loss of weight triggered a transformation in Terri that ....
  • The eating disorder comment (in the early life paragraph) is unsupported speculation; at least that's how it reads. I am therefore modifying it in line with the above quote, and footnoting. Martin | talk • contribs 07:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I left the sentence in for the time being anyway. I am not sure what to do. The statement does not agree with the citation. Sandia Nair, the writer cited, does not say that an eating disorder may have begun at the time of Terri's graduation, nor does it say she lost 55 pounds - it says she lost 100 pounds from 250. I am not sure if Sandia Nair is just speculating about Terri as an "example" of the dangers of eating disorders, or if she is intending to convey facts specific to Terri's case. Martin | talk • contribs 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The above quote from "A Life That Matters" says that Terri went on Nutra System diet right after graduating, but the current text says that she went on Nutra System in 1980 then graduated in 1981. That looks like a mistake in the current text to me: I am sure her mom remembers that incident correctly, given how sensitive young women are to their weight, and their moms are to them. Martin | talk • contribs 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The third paragrpah - can we reduce or remove it

It reads: Despite intervention by the other branches, the courts continued to uphold the circuit court ruling that Schiavo was in a PVS, and that she would want life-prolonging procedures withdrawn. Her feeding tube was removed a third and final time on 18 March 2005. She died thirteen days later of dehydration at a Pinellas Park hospice on 31 March 2005, at the age of 41.
Most of this is contained in the prior two paragraphs.

  • intervention by other two branches
  • circuit court upheld
  • ruling executed in 2005

Maybe just say Terri Schiavo died of dehydration at a Pinellas Park Hospice on 31 March 2005, at the age of 41.

Amenorrhea

current text is: and she was not menstruating (lack of menstruation, or amenorrhea is sometimes associated with excessive weight loss, as is thought to be the case with Schiavo). The statement as is thought to be the case with Schiavo is not attributed. The juxtapostion is enough to indicate that at least someone thinks that that fact is relevant and might be of note here. To note, in the passive voice, that some do think that, is not to add anything. It would be interesting to know "who" it is that thinks that that is the case, with a citation. Failing that, the phrase is redundant. Martin | talk • contribs 08:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

hypokalemia (low potassium)

It would be nice if a doctor would comment on her low potassium. Do we know if her other electrolytes were looked at (magnesium?). And whether trauma also affects magnesium? [1]. The citation says that severe low potassium is below 3.0, other sites say under 2.5. Possibly 3.0 is severe (unusual?) as a result of trauma. No sense speculating... Martin | talk • contribs 08:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

fertility treatment

On Larry King, Michael says that he and Terri were going to Dr Igel for fertility treatments. That assertion is included in the current article. But Dr Stephen Igel, the one that settled for $200k, is an ob/gyn, not a 'fertility' doctor. The other doctor in the malpractice case, Dr Prawer, the million dollar award, is described as their family doctor. It makes sense that Terri, who was not menstruating, was going to an ob/gyn to find out what was wrong. What were these 'fertility treatments'? [2] Martin | talk • contribs 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
modified Martin | talk • contribs 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another dispute involving User:Calton

Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Edit_War_between_me_and_User:Calton; additionally, for all those who prefer active instead of passive voice, I seek said input.--GordonWatts 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, give it up: blog postings -- with very distinct exceptions -- are prohibited as reliable sources and adding YOUR OWN sites is doubly so. Not even close to borderline, no matter how many anon IPs you canvass. Oh, and spinning this as "another dispute involving User:Calton", given your long, long track record of losing battles LONG before I ever came on the scene is, fundamentally, dishonest. --Calton | Talk 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"...and adding YOUR OWN sites is doubly so." If you look at the edit history, you will see that those recent edits by me were reverts of your edits -not the adding of any sites or links: Big difference - 2 different things here. "Oh, and spinning this as "another dispute involving User:Calton", given your long, long track record of losing battles LONG before I ever came on the scene is, fundamentally, dishonest." That is not dishonest; It is a dispute involving you. In my post to a few talk pages of recent editors, I did not opine on whether you were wrong or not, thus I could not have lied. If you are feeling upset at this matter, it must be your conscience speaking to you, because I never lied at all. I made my case, and I asked for input. That is not a lie: I indeed was seeking input and seeking consensus, which is the Wikipedia way; Would you rather me simply revert you again? That is what will happen if you push me. It's your move.--GordonWatts 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
because I never lied at all Funny thing to say, since you, in fact, just did so by indulging in some doubletalk: If you look at the edit history, you will see that those recent edits by me were reverts of your edits -not the adding of any sites or links: Big difference - 2 different things here. Gordon, those links did not magically appear in the article: you added them. Whether you added them yesterday or last year is immaterial, your attempt at misdirection by talking about "recently" notwithstanding. They don't belong, you shouldn't have added them to begin with, you don't revert-war to add them back, and you absolutely don't make up specious and nonsensical attempts to deflect your responsibility for them. And you've been told they're inappropriate by other people already. --Calton | Talk 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gordon, I'll take a look, but I have a feeling I'm going to agree with Calton, here. ElinorD 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Before you make up your mind, please see the discussion on the talk pages of the article in question. HERE is a permadiff of the most current doings.--GordonWatts 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Blogs and Geocities links should not appear in this or any other article as a source. They are simply not reliable sources.--Isotope23 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the actual policy does it state that Geocities sites or blogs can not be used? This is why many people consider Wikipedia an unreliable source; While you have a point -and probably mean well, you are not getting paid enough money to force you to actually check out the actual facts and policy -you are wrong here, or if you disagree, please cite actual policy -not mere opinions. When I am occasionally wrong (about Terri's Fight being a good link, since it involved blood family), I admitted I was wrong, so you can be sure that if you find the actual policy, I will really read what you write, but you are wrong; Blogs, while discourages can and are used as sources. Show me in policy where Geocities or blogs are forbidden. I await your studied reply.--GordonWatts 08:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletions make Wikipedia an unreliable source

I have observed massive deletions...

    • New: When controversial material is deleted, it is traditional to put it on the talk page (here) so editors can review and discuss it -and reach consensus (sometimes voting is used to see what consensus is, yes, a mathematical method is objective, not subjective: WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_vs._supermajority). So, my post here is not meant to cause argument, but, rather, to stir discussion: What belong in -and what belongs out? If a better source is needed, can we get one? Can we use several sources? It seems in these links above that a small consensus exists to exclude the materials, and I accept that, but, at the same time, I keep the material under review, and my "vote" as it were, is "include" for every single delete above. That is my vote, for the record -and let the record reflect such -whether I am active in editing or not -for future generations.--GordonWatts 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif --Fredrick day 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, we must cite our sources: This is not about "gordon's links," for if you note: MOST of the links are NOT mine, and they can't ALL be bad... And we wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source itself? Ironic isn't it that the very thing editors claim about other links not being reliable is what contributes to Wikipedia itself not being reliable:

  • Wikipedia not reliable paper source; Tony Sapochetti; Issue date: 5/5/06 Section: News [3]
  • "Growing pains for Wikipedia: Post 6 of 17: Recently found it was not reliable" [4]
  • "Wikis and the Idiocy of Crowds" [5]
  • "Wikipedia does not have a lot of credibility within academe, and detractors of the online, open-source encyclopedia say it devalues the notion of expertise that is the bedrock of higher education..." http://chronicle.com/live/2006/10/halavais
  • "The Mirror Front Page > News "You get what you pay for: Wikipedia, free encyclopedia, not considered reliable source by some students" By: Joe Carretta; Issue date: 11/2/06 Section: News [6]
  • Wikipedia : growing pains challenge credibility by Jason A. Martin @ 8:00 am. Filed under Media [7]
  • "Of course the INQ comes in for a mention now and then: "I don't count the Inquirer as independent for an article about the meme; they claim to have discovered/started it. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, and that is all that has been offered here," comments a wiki in favour of deletion." http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37165
  • "Wikipedia is a joke. It's basically half a million articles about Star Trek characters. Most of the country articles are re-heated CIA factbook copies. It's very unreliable, and the writing is of a juvenile quality. In other words - it's the product of thousands of geeks with articles that geeks will be interested in." Posted by Karl Jonson at April 7, 2005 12:13 PM
  • "I'm not a huge fan of Wikipedia, perhaps for the reasons one might expect. The idea is somewhat sound and parts of it are useful, but their attempts to establish “academic credibility” are ill-considered. And as long as they insist on having lengthy articles about people and events they'll eventually end up turning into just another encyclopedia. The most sensible thing is to never use it, and for a totally obvious reason: it's not reliable, and in its present form never can be. [8]
  • Bottom of 3rd paragraph: "Even teenagers chimed in on how Wikipedia was not reliable information in the eyes of their teachers." [9]
  • "Letter to my students on 051203: Friends, Please DO NOT use Wikipedia as a reference source in your semester project. You have a free on-line subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica through the Norwegian School of Management library, and you have access to many other excellent reference tools. Wikipedia is not reliable. [emphasis added] The story below is an example. There is now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools." [10]

"Thangs that make ya go 'Hmm...'."--GordonWatts 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source has nothing to do with "mass deletions". It is because some editors feel that it is acceptable practive to post material sourced to non-reliable sources or to leave unsourced material in an article while we look about for a source because they "know that it is true". Every one of the diffs you pointed out above were removal of information that was cited with sources that fall well short of what could be considered a reliable source for citing text on Wikipedia. Removal is warrented. We have a page history here and if at some point reliable sources can be found for a passage, it can always be pulled out and added along with the source, but leaving text in an article unsourced or sourced to a blog, personal website, or college newspaper is the wrong way to go about it. That is what leads to Wikipedia being deemed unreliable as a source.--Isotope23 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In sort of a logical way, your comment is humorous: That is, both of us are agreeing that Wikipedia is less than totally reliable but arrive at that conclusion based on opposing (mutually exclusive) arguments. I do agree that using less than pristine sources is not preferred, but this is the real world, and in one case on my mind now, I know of one such "oral argument" hearing in the Terri Schiavo case where only ONE reporter was present to report on George Felos and some ACLJ attorney, but should we exclude that encyclopaedic entry simply because the web-newspaper of that reporter is somehow unclean? If there is doubt as to the truthfulness/reliability/verifiability (see note below) of the news report, then a note can be included in the Wikipedia article, but to fail to report on it is being a bad and unfaithful historian! (A historian must report on ALL things, notable and non-notable, and if non-notable, then make a note that it is "non-notable" and provide a rationale.) OK, here's that note I promised: Yes, I know that WP:Verifiability (a related article to the link you gave) plainly says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." However, this statement does not perforce prove itself! To accept that statement as proof of ITSELF would be simply Circular_logic aka Begging the question. That is, the proof you use must come from an objective outside area. To conclude, the policy statement is basically implying that something that is from a non-notable source is incapable of being "verified," but this is false. In the example I used above, the reporter present at the hearing with Michael Schiavo attorney, George Felos, was me, and this can be verified by speaking with the blood relatives of Terri Schiavo. Any news reporter can verify this, so, while technically it is true to say that verifiability [is not] not truth, the implication that non-notable sources are unverifiable is false. "Real" encyclopedias often use even LESS verifiable "sources." Observe: [The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture Project] cites to even LEGENDS, hello? To quote: "The Legend of Petit Jean is a romantic Arkansas tale that purports to explain the origin of the name of Petit Jean Mountain. Although there are other explanations that are both more logical and more mundane, when someone refers to “The Legend of Petit Jean,” the person is most likely alluding to the romantic one." Even Fox News has the right idea: We report, you decide: Wikipedia should report the oral argument news story by news reporter, Gordon Watts, A.S., B.S. (me) and the related story by Nurse and news reporter, Cheryl Ford, R.N. here -unless it can be shown that the paper or reporters had contrived a story like news reporter Jayson Blair did. Watts and Ford are Innocent Until Proven Guilty -and, Mr. Blair was also, but he has been shown to be guilty of false reporting. Thus, Watts and Ford should be able to be used for sources -so long as they have a good history of truthful reporting -innocent until proven guilty of being a "non-reliable source." We still live in America, right? It still is innocent until proven guilty, right?--GordonWatts 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line: reliable sources can be used, unreliable sources cannot. Much of what you are refering to above would entail WP:OR, but I suspect you already know this. Wikipedia isn't an exercise in semantics Gordon and this isn't a court of law so many of your arguments simply don't apply here. Sorry, your own personal websites simply don't meet the requirements of being a reliable source and are a conflict of interest. They should not appear in the articles. End of story.--Isotope23 14:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, even with unjust sanctions NOT supported by "community consensus" (just a minority of the community), it appears I still have my "one post per day," so I'll cut to the chase: I think you know better; When I report on local or international news, it is NOT "Original Research." You know that Original Research is something that "introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea." (You did read the policy you cited, right?!) Now, COI does not prohibit me from discussing the idea either; In fact (you did reads this too, right?), policy on COI clearly states: "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia." You don't have a problem with policy, there, do you, eh? LASTLY, the issue of reliability is NOT objective as you might have it; The NY Times HAS published false "news," which it had to retract. The Register has recently had to redact a news item, but mistakes happen -what we publish is reliable enough for MANY people -don't make it too complicated: Just use the "common sense" approach: If most readers would believe our news stories (even though we are human and -yes! we make mistakes as writers), then full-stop period: The news items are (at least somewhat -and possibly quite) reliable. Don't make it more complicated than necessary!--GordonWatts 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Common sense that isn't complicated - If it was published in a newspaper... say the New York Times... and could be cited to such as a WP:RS. If it was published at hometown.aol.com and written by you = WP:RS and WP:COI if you added it to the article. Your suggestion of "this can be verified by speaking with the blood relatives of Terri Schiavo..." would constitute WP:OR on the part of any editor going out to try and "verify" this. It is not complicated; it is very simple.--Isotope23 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it more complicated than necessary! Oh, the irony. Let me refresh your memory:

Per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

  • You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
  • You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
  • Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

It's over, Gordon. Done. They're never going in. --Calton | Talk 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Five years of struggle

The recent change to the first paragraph needs some work. It is true that, after the court made the determination to pull the tube, the Schindler's were fighting the court rather than Michael. Martin | talk • contribs 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The new addition of "on the other hand" (which I have not read closely) I think is taking this in the wrong direction. Martin | talk • contribs 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I took back out "on the other hand". Michael's article makes it clear from the Robert Herring offer that the option was there. What else should we add or remove?--70.231.141.99 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you the one that put it in? Just curious. Martin | talk • contribs 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Curiosity killed the cat.--64.9.237.9 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

hopes of having a child (citation needed)

Michael said something like this* on CNN/Larry King. However at the malpractice trial, he said that he never talked to Dr Igel. The discharge notes from Humana say that Terri was seeing a ob/gyn for a vaginal infection, and she had had no other notable treatments. Martin | talk • contribs 06:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
At the July 27 92 deposition, Michael said that Dr Prawer, the family doctor, referred Terri to Dr Igel, the obgyn, because Terri missed her period. Martin | talk • contribs 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

.*from CNN/Larry King SCHIAVO: No children. Terri and I were trying to have children. We were back and forth to a doctor for a year or so, trying to find out why we weren't getting pregnant.[11]. Martin | talk • contribs 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

excessive weight loss and amenorrhea

Article says: Lack of menstruation, or amenorrhea is sometimes associated with excessive weight loss. Dr Prawer's records indicate* that Terri was between 120 and 124 the four times he saw her in the year prior to her collapse. Michael does testify (jul 27 p 65)that she had weight swings, but later backs off (p 85) from that when presented with Prawer's records. But the comment, as written, is speculative.
.* Medical Malpractice Trial, July 27 1992 p85
Martin | talk • contribs 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)