Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Voting is Evil"

Gordon, do you require re-education regarding your misunderstanding about "voting" and "consensus"? --Calton | Talk 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

North Country Gazette

Whatever the legitimacy of this source, it seems clear a recent spat of edits on Schiavo related pages is related to the promotion of a new book by the website's publisher. Some of the edits have referred specifically to the new book. Ace-o-aces 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

>>NEWER REPLY:>>>>I just now saw your comment about the book; I looked at the article page, and it seems to promote MANY books. That alone is not problematic, but I concede that the prior editor made an edit that listed TWO links to the North County Gazette; That might be a bit extreme, so I propose a compromise with only one link. If no one says anything, I may make the edit and note it myself. Awaiting further input.GordonWatts 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the author of that book is a weirdo -for many reasons, but her writings (on the subject) seem to at least be "opinion," and quite possibly correct -but the latter is not a requirement to be listed in the section we placed her. Hello, Calton. How's it hanging there in Japan?GordonWatts 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The current "vote-count" (consensus or not) is as follows:
  • Add link(s): Zenger + GordonWatts + V-Man737
  • Leave link off: Ace-o-aces + Calton +Proto
    • Summary: Tie vote: 3-3
    • Comments: The author threatened to sue even those on her side for copyright infringement -even when doing so jeopardized her fight to save Terri's life. However, this is not germane to the listing of her link. She need not even tell the truth: Her link was listed in the opinions / commentary section. Since she was one of the major writers regarding the Schiavo saga (opinions of editors notwithstanding), thus she qualifies to be listed, and the argument to list her link was greater than the argument to not list it.GordonWatts 09:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Updated Summary: Tie still un-broken: 3-3

Gordon, am I going to have to go back and dig out all the opinions which -- universally -- explained to you your fundamental misunderstanding about "votes" and which saw through your incredibly tendentious and self-serving interpretations thereof?

In my prior edit, I was correcting your spelling error, and I was going to answer in the same edit, but I hit the ENTER key accidentally before I could make a proper Edit summary -anyhow, the archives are not relevant: All that is relevant here is whether or not this edit is a good one. Not only might you stir up strife (your specialty), but you also might sprain a muscle or something, so I would advice against this heavy lifting...GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
the archives are not relevant - Your past behavior, your fundamental misunderstanding of how decisions are arrived at here, your past attempts to enact your fundamental misunderstandings, and the NUMEROUS corrections you received from countless editors and the utter lack of support for your interpretation are in fact relevant, as you appear poised to repeat your behavior as if nothing had ever happened. Bringing them up to remind you -- and to educate new editors -- can only help keep you from digging the same hole for yourself again. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

she was one of the major writers regarding the Schiavo saga

You quote me here, but your own evidence shows that she is a major writer. You're making a case for your opposition. ??GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete bull. A look through the Google News Archives pulls up 63 hits -- almost all of them from "North Country Gazette", which is just as much a newspaper as your personal so-called "news site" (Alexa Traffic Rank for northcountrygazette.org: 273,530. This isn't a reliable source, it's not in the same ballpark as a reliable source, it's not in the same COUNTY as a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: Even IF she's not a reliable source (and I admit that she is not as "founded and grounded" as, say, the New York Times), I say, even IF she's not a completely reliable news source, that is not relevant: She offers a counter-point of opinions. Lastly, I submit that she IS a fairly reliable news source: She has not been sued for libel, slander, or defamation of character, so your case is weak. She indeed, even as you point out, was a major writer, and that is the only real qualification here: Google is not biased. Maybe I'll call others in to weigh in on this.GordonWatts 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
She indeed, even as you point out, was a major writer From complete bull to complete bullshit. Kindly stick to actual facts, however you mangle, misinterpret, and bend them, but don't resort to outright fabrication. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification regarding Google.com
Earlier, both you and I tried to use Google to prove a point, but I wasn't clear. I think you used Google to show that June Maxam is highly associated with her newspaper. Duh... That is to be expected. However, I just saw in google the following:
This google news search for "Terri Schiavo" news currently shows the following hits (which change with time)
  • Terri Schiavo Judge George Greer to Speak at Jury Trial Conference
  • LifeNews.com, MT - 22 hours ago
  • Dallas, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Judge George Greer continues to travel the lecture circuit despite his controversial ruling allowing Terri Schiavo's former ...


  • TerriPAC Files Amended FEC Reports
  • North Country Gazette, NY - 9 hours ago
  • Terri Schiavo died March 31, 2005, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed by order of probate court George W. Greer. The FEC had imposed a deadline of ...


  • Karen Finley's Laura Bush/Terri Schiavo Makes Chicago Debut Jan. 3
  • Playbill.com, NY - Jan 2, 2007
  • Internationally renowned performance artist Karen Finley performs the Chicago premiere of her works The Dreams of Laura Bush/The Passion of Terri Schiavo ...


  • Life and Family Catholic Church Scandals of 2006
  • Lifesite, NY - 17 hours ago
  • ... in his local Catholic Church despite the fact that the Vatican condemned as murder his order to have his disabled wife Terri Schiavo starved to death. ...
My point? June's "paper," or whatever you want to call it, beats everyone except one paper; The NCG is currently ranked #2 in the world in Google news about Terri Schiavo. Google does not let just anybody list their "blog" as a "news source." There have been documented cases of "papers" getting the boot for being biased; One case that sticks out in my mind was this one "paper" that insulted Muslims, under the guise of news -it got the boot; The North County Gazette did not, so according to the number 1-ranked search engine, The NCG is "news." I rest my case and ask for other input, votes on this link.GordonWatts 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you used Google to show that June Maxam is highly associated with her newspaper. Duh...
Noooo, I'm pointing out that she's ONLY associated with her "newspaper", making her, in effect, self-published. Duh... I'm not seeing the slightest sign anyone anywhere else cares about her or has paid attention to her as a "major writer", other than, perhaps, the St. Petersburg Times (an actual newspaper, by the way) devoting a short article to her rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories [1] -- and even there she's not the primary subject, the county sheriff she was trying to smear was.
My point? June's "paper," or whatever you want to call it, beats everyone except one paper...
Your "point" breaks new ground in long-winded irrelevancy. Clue: Google News deals with current events and Terri Schiavo, being dead for nearly two years, is NOT a current event. Therefore (follow this carefully) that says nothing about the actual prominence about the top results -- not mention your jumping to the conclusion that being at the top of the results a priori confers superiority over the others. Your case is rested, but only in the same way that the this parrot is "merely resting". --Calton | Talk 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a thing for dead parrots? Have you told your psycologist this?GordonWatts 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a thing for dead parrots? I have a dislike of parrots, yes: sucks to be you then, I guess.
Have you told your psycologist [sic] this? I don't have one. You, on the other hand, require someone to teach you how to dress: Image:GordonWattsRallyCropped.jpg --Calton | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put one of the links in, noting clearly what exactly it is, so that those who will get offended by whatever it says will avoid it. Then kiss and make up, and both of you take a wikibreak. Of course it may get frustrating to make edits only to have them undone minutes later, but that's what makes Wikipedia what it is. You'll have to learn to accept it without focusing on each others' human flaws. V-Man737 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no other votes, this matter is settled, and the compromise accepted: The V-Man has spoken, and the tie is broken; I shall insert the "lesser offensive" of the two possible links -as the book promotion seems more controversial. Thx 4 your participation. To answer your other point aboyut peace and making up, I shall not raise any accusation against Cal or any others, even if matters go against me: I have my own religios beliefs and gratitude. WATTS to Bridge: One to beam up; Energize...GordonWatts 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no other votes, this matter is settled What did I tell you about outright fabrication, Gordon? And once again, the umpteenth time in the last two years: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY AND VOTE COUNTS MEAN NOTHING and your utterly bogus "tie-breaker" excuse means LESS than nothing. Why don't you understand this? Why hasn't this sunk in after two years of numerous people telling you so? Free clue for you and V-Man737: since no one has died and left him in charge, saying "he has spoken!" is meaningless. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heyyy, everyone can wait for a few more votes! It's all gonna be okay. How about a nice cup of tea? V-Man737 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Guy, if you don't know what you're doing, don't pretend and don't practice mindless equivalency.
For your educational purposes:
Gordon -- under his current name and previous name of GordonWattsDotCom (talk · contribs) -- has a LONG history of tendetious edits, long-winded Wikilawyering, complete misunderstanding of basic policies, and near-universal opposition to his attempts to bend this article to float his pet conspiracy theories, as a quick skim of the 44 talk page archives he's helped fill up would show. So again, don't play referee if you don't understand the game. Your so-called compromise is no such thing: that link doesn't belong, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to back Calton up on this - straw polls are evil, because if they were used, all we'd see would Wikipedia policy and the requirements for reliable sourcing and referencing being subverted by numbers. No. I don't care how well Google's notoriously unreliable pageranking system has been gamed. The link is not acceptable, so do not add the link. Proto::► 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
;_; *sigh* if you say so. So basically there's nowhere we could put that link? You know, just in case someone looks up the Wikipedia entry about Terri Schiavo to see if they can find websites about her case that are totally biased? And yeah, User:Calton's right. I really shouldn't try to contribute to important articles like this one until I have as much experience as he does. Of course with my miniscule and insignificant 238 edits, how could I have expected to be bold without getting bitten? I'll go sulk in the corner now. V-Man737 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Your so-called compromise is no such thing: that link doesn't belong, period/full stop. (quoting Calton from above; The dark Jedi get red)
So basically there's nowhere we could put that link? (quoting V-man from above)
Answer: I found a place to place the link; i.e., see e.g., below.GordonWatts 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This was partly my doing, so I take responsability: I backed up the 1st editor of this dispute, Zenger. However, Even though the matter went to a tie, I still think you were on the right mark, V-Man: Indeed, you gave more clarity and description to the link and were more unbiased than even I was: I will unfortunately accept the outcome: In a tie situation (this is a tie with six editors, a respectable number, not a straw poll) -the "status quo" is the tie-breaker, and before this dispute, the Gazette link was not present, so it shall determine the tie. However, The Gazette DOES make for "commentary," so, if it your edit that was reversed by Cal and backed by Proto was not that type, I shall add it; If it was, I shall think it over. To conclude, you were closer to unbiased, new editor, V-Man, than any of us, even myself, whether or not you were in the losing side of the vote, and your suggestion to relax over what IS INDEED a trivial matter was correct, Cal's thoughts notwithstanding, no offense meant to Cal; He is entitled to his opinion too.GordonWatts 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

North County Gazette dispute: A new approach to compromise

Regarding the dispute above, I have noticed a different Wikipedia page which has links such as Zenger, myself, and V-Man suggest, and I placed the disputed link among other links of its type, since I surmise it shall fit in appropriately.

This was the logical place to place the edit -and... This is the edit in question.

In closing, I note, however, that the links section on the main Terri Schiavo page probably would do better if it was more well-rounded and balanced such as the links section on the page above. Just an idea -but Calton, it may be ruled that way, and if it does, don't fret: The links section seems to be working on the sister page, so its inclusion on the Terri Schiavo page seems quite logical. However, this is a big change, and I would not be appropriate to enact it without concensus. That's my input here.GordonWatts 07:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

'Well-rounded and balanced' - the sub article contains 5 links in favour of removal of the feeding tube, and 25 opposing (it was 26, but I have re-removed the NCG spamlink you inserted again. I fail to see how this is well-rounded and balanced. Also, Gordon, please note that adding a promotional link on another page because it was not allowed on this one is not a 'compromise'.
I recommend you halve the number of "pro life / anti-removal of feeding tube / anti-Michael Schiavo / anti-euthanasia / call them what you will" links on the Public opinion and actuvusm, or double the links for the other side of the argument. If you do not, I will, and I will just pick them at random, as the balance of links on the subpage is heavily skewed towards one point of view. Proto::► 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have gone ahead and removed all the links from the subpage that were not about Terri Schiavo directly (instead being about euthansia issues as a whole), I've removed the polls (as a poll is not advocacy, it's a poll), and another piece from the North Country Gazette, which is not (despite its misleading name) a newspaper (it's a blog). Proto::► 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you make a logical point, Proto, and I would tend to agree, but please do not blame me: I have not edited this thing in ages! Well, I would agree that balance is a good goal to seek unbiased reporting, but if you must chose, please remember: I'm an inclusionist, and with very good reason: It works! So, I would prefer that links be added to balance, rather than removed. Tally ho!GordonWatts 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, with the inappropriate links (ie, not related to the topic of the subpage, or not about Schiavo directly) removed, the balance is a lot better anyway. Proto::► 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've aligned the tables, and I see it is 9-9 - a perfect balance, as far as "how many" on each opposing side. With the tables aligned on that sub-page, it's easier to keep track of said balance, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that Calton will try and find something wrong with this, my latest edit of the Public_opinion_and_activism_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case#Other_external_links subpage's links subsection somehow construing it as "biased" or something; However (and giving even Cal the benefit of the doubt, like we all should), I could be wrong, and I hope I am. PS: Cal, I used cooler colors to keep you happy, while still having enough of a contrast (this is brown text) to show readers where the new comment was just added.--GordonWatts 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I found something new, Proto, related to June Maxam's paper's credibility: Since there was talk of her not being reported or supported by major media (remember, Calton raised this point above?) - therefore, see that http://www.trt-ny.org/ArtTUnion_EB_2-17-04.htm at the bottom of the page indicates Calton is wrong: "The Albany Times Union has picked up on the story of June Maxam and her effort to publicize the fact that dozens of County and Supreme Court Judge's in New York State have not properly filed their oath of office..." This, then shows that, while it is not on a "Schiavo-related" matter, Maxam is credible as a news source: I add that this is similar to judge Greer's lack of oath of office issues, but this is not a strike against June Maxam's paper: Her paper has credibility, regardless of what you think about her as a person, so at least a few of her links seem appropriate and in order.--GordonWatts 04:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
see that http://www.trt-ny.org/ArtTUnion_EB_2-17-04.htm at the bottom of the page indicates Calton is wrong: Bullcrap: the article -- one article -- is about June Maxam and her local crusade. It doesn't say -- or even hint -- that the "North Country Gazette" is an actual newspaper or that she's an actual journalist, especially given that the reprinted piece begins with Armed with little more than a home computer and righteous indignation.... And, most especially, there's not a single mention of Terri Schiavo, a strange omission when talking about a "major writer" on the subject.
So, to steal from Wolfgang Pauli, Gordon, you're not right, you're not even wrong. What you ARE doing is grasping at straws. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: I found this link which verify's the claims I made above (claims which come from some blog) - http://www.AlbanyLaw.edu/media/user/archivemediacomm.pdf ---which, when opened (bottom of page 16 and top of page 17), say this:
Schiavo is not on trial here -The North County Gazette is; And, mentioning Schiavo is besides the point when addressing whether or not Maxam's paper is credible. See also...the updated info I found which substantiates this claim:
February 18, 2004 - 2
Albany Times Union
Point of law sparks woman's crusade - ELIZABETH BENJAMIN
Armed with little more than a home computer and righteous indignation, June Maxam ....has been fighting for several years
to have many of the state's roughly 3,300 judges removed from their posts because she believes they did not properly file
their legally mandated oaths of office....
Albany Law School Professor Vincent M. Bonventre said it's highly unlikely the state's highest court would vacate hundreds
of decisions -- even if the judges who made them hadn't met their oath requirements. "This is really more of a ministerial
matter," Bonventre said. "If the statutes were applied literally, it would upset far, far too many things. I can't imagine the
Court of Appeals allowing that to happen."
....But Bonventre deemed Maxam's quest "perfectly viable."
"We have so many laws on the books that there's no way anybody can know all the laws they're supposed to be obeying,"
Bonventre said. "But, that said, ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Conclusion: Maxam is credible as a news source, according to Major Media.--GordonWatts 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
ALSO: To address your specific points - whether or not she uses a computer or is specifically called by the word "journalist," is not relevant: Actions speak louder than words, and her endorsement (read the word "viable" above), is the point; If her quest is viable, then her tenure as a journalist is; In fact, she has been a journalist possibly longer than you've been alive. (Do your research next time: She has been in journalism for like 35 years or so.)--GordonWatts 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Schiavo is not on trial here -The North County Gazette is
You need to keep your stories straight: the whole point of this longwinded exercise in vigorous handwaving is June Maxam's standing and credibility as a "major writer" on Terri Schiavo and therefore includable here. You have failed -- utterly -- to demonstrate that a) she's a "major writer" on Terri Schiavo; b) she's a "major writer"; c) she's a writer, at least in actually being an actual journalist, your unbacked claims about her "career" notwithstanding; d) her "North Country Gazette" is anything more than personal blog all dressed up, Of course, you were making the same bogus claims about your own self-described "online newspaper", so perhaps you don't actually understand what "journalist", "major writer, or "newspaper" means, either. Given that absolutely no one bought your claims of being a journalist, you might have taken a hint there.
If her quest is viable, then her tenure as a journalist is
I wish I hadn't already used the Wolfgang Pauli line, since this chain of so-called reasoning is even more untethered from reality. What does the first clause have to do with the second? The only thing connecting them is a comma
Conclusion: Maxam is credible as a news source Repeating exactly the same nonsense doesn't change a thing. Keep grasping at those straws, Gordon, but it'll do you no good. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WATTS' First Law of Argument: When one has no credible counter-argument, one resorts to ad hominem attacks. Since the show fits, wear it.--GordonWatts 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC) corrected; see below:--GordonWatts 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you didn't indent in a uniform manner (and indeed, I also indented wrongly and fixed both mine and your error on that edit), so I temporarily missed your counter-argument ...you actually made one; I'm sorry I accused you of not making one, so I will try to address the points above. A) As shown by the amount of articles she has written, it is a fact that Maxam's paper IS a major reporter on Schiavo, whether true or not -whether news or opinion. (I say "paper" because she was not always the only writer for it, which also gives more credibility, not that it is needed since I also answer the points below). B) She's a major writer, as evidenced by the news reports of "major" media which featured her (The St Pete Times and that Albany paper, to name a few) -AND the dirt she has uncovered as an investigator -and featured later in other media, which shows it was "real" news -not mere a writer who copies other peoples' stuff. C) Your point "C" above, where you use the word "journalist" instead of "writer" is redundant, and I've already addressed that point in "B" above. D) "Blogs" are news sources, as evidenced by the Pro-Life and Fight for Terri-type blogs traditionally listed in the commentary link sections of Wikipedia "Schiavo" article -and possibly also as sources of news items. So, your point about her "paper" being a blog (if it indeed is one) is not valid criticism: Blogs are the wave of the future in news sources. You don't make a strong case; Yes, her "paper," or whatever you want to call it may not be the New York Times, but there are "times," that I would trust her over the Times on certain issues, if not all issues. Sometimes David is stronger than Goliath, after all. Even if he were not, he is still a good, loyal soldier, and by analogy, The North County Gazette is still some form of news source.--GordonWatts 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: While you're mulling on that, Cal, why don't you show me documentation of where the North County Gazette has been caught in a lie -not a difference of interpretation on an opnion piece, but where there was an actual lie. (Even if you do find such, we recall the NY Times has occasionally published "fabrications," so you're going to have to get a doosey to convince me the Gazette is not newsworthy. -Awaiting your reply on these last 2 posts.-GordonWatts 07:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Below, I altered the colours temporarily for two purposes: #1: To make clear who is saying what, and #2: to wake up the other fellow with whom I'm conversing; He is slightly adverse to colours, and might likely change them back, but until then, my old quote (where he writes, but quoting me) is in dark blue, his is in dark red, and my current quote is indented once more and in bright blue.-GordonWatts 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
you actually made one
I was referring to "you actually made a reply," because I mistakenly thought Cal did not reply, due partly to my human error and partly due to formatting irregularities.-GordonWatts 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing nothing BUT, even if you keep pretending not to see them or choose to mangle/misstate/redirect them. And speaking of which:
why don't you show me documentation of where the North County Gazette has been caught in a lie -not a difference of interpretation on an opnion piece, but where there was an actual lie
Why don't I explain why the "North County Gazette" is neither a dessert topping nor floor wax instead, since it's just as relevant because I did not write, say, whisper, hint, imply, or even idly think that the North County Gazette was lying about anything whatsoever. You've gone from misquoting/misreading/mangling what I've said, straight to Making Shit Up. I'll deal with the rest of your handwaving nonsense later (being in two newspaper articles automatically makes her a major writer, especially since neither of them refers to her as a writer? "Blog postings" = "journalism"? "Lots of blog postings" = "major journalism"? Lord.), but I thought I'd highlight the most immediately ludicrous, untethered-from-reality statement. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed the indenting to make it coherent; Now, to answer your point above about misquoting, etc: I never claimed that you accused the Gazette of lying, and I'm sorry if you inferred such; What I mean, rather, was that if the Gazette has published a lot on Schiavo and none is discerned as having been dishonest, then it follows that it is "reliable" enough -even if it is not the New York Times. That is my take on reliability on a news source: It must be true, and if true, then that carries the day to qualify it as "major," unless, of course, it only published like 1 or 2 editions, but that is not the case here.-GordonWatts 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Gordon. A large amount of content on a topic does not magically make it a reliable source. It is a blog. It is not a news source. You have been pointed in the direction of Wikipedia:Reliable sources enough times. Proto::► 08:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing apples with oranges, Proto. Although I personally think that the Gazette is a very reliable source of information, size notwithstanding, that is not the point I was trying to make: It may (or may not) be a good source of news, but it DEFINITELY and abundantly qualifies as a good source of commentary. The point of view espoused -or the reliability -are not factors at all. The very definition of commentary is an expression of opinion, which may or may not be correct and true. "News," on the other hand, is supposed to be both true and without a slant or bias. Therefore, the Gazette easily qualifies as commentary. If it does not, then why?-GordonWatts 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I just noticed: That WAS the point I was trying to make there. (I was arguing that the Gazette is reliable news, and I know of no times it was inaccurate.) However, I was trying to make another point: It is also commentary.-GordonWatts 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinguising between Schiavo 1, 2, 3, and 4 - regarding a recent edit

I saw -and reverted -a recent edit that looked wrong, but I'll admit it was confusing even for me.

Here's the data I got on which one was which:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5pNwyRwC7W0J:www.2dca.org/opinion/March%252016,%25202005/2D05-968.pdf+%22schiavo+I%22+%22schiavo+II%22+%22schiavo+III%22+%22schiavo+iv%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

See In re Guardianship of Schiavo , No. 90-2908-GD (Fla. Pinellas Cir. Ct.Feb. 11, 2000) (order authorizing discontinuation of artificial life support); In reGuardianship of Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo I), reviewdenied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (Fla.2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo II); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA2001) (Schiavo III), review denied, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002); Schindler v. Schiavo exrel. Schiavo, 829 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (table citation denying motion); In reGuardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GD-003, 2002 WL 31876088 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov.22, 2002); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GB-003, 2002 WL 31817960(Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002); Schiavo v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-cv-1860-T-26TGW, 2003 WL22469905 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2003); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV), review denied, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003); Schindlerv. Schiavo, 865 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (table decision denying prohibition);Advocacy Ctr. for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.D291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003); Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2003 WL22762709 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 4, 2003); Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA2003); Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2004 WL 628663 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2004);Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Schindler v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bush v. Schiavo, 871 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004);Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2004 WL 980028 (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 5, 2004);Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1086 (2005);Schindler v. Schiavo, No. 2D04-3451, 2004 WL 2726107 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 24, 2004)(table decision); In re Guardianship of Schiavo, No. 90-2908-GD-003, 2005 WL 459634(Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 25, 2005).

Original source: http://www.2dca.org/opinion/March%2016,%202005/2D05-968.pdf

--GordonWatts 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediplex

The article currently says: Michael returned to Florida with her in January 1991 and admitted her to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center (specializing in brain[citation needed] injuries) in Bradenton, Florida ... The "[citation needed]" has been in place for a long time, with no citation forthcoming. In the meantime, the website for Mediplex has disappeared, and it is not listed in this listing of rehab facilities: [2]. I see that the Rehabillation Institue of Chicago's Brain Injury Medicine and Rehabilitation Program is not listed either, so I won't delete the phrase in parentheses after all. However I can't find any evidence to support the claim. Oh wait, yes Chicago [3] is listed under Rehabilitation Institute. So I will delete the phrase in parentheses. Here is a reference to Mediplex in the vita [4] of Gail Ward at Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital, so Mediplex did exist. Gail's career path was Mediplex in 1987, eventually COO, to Tandem Health Care in 1998 to Morton Plant in 2005. Morton is where Terri's tube was reinserted in 2003. MartinGugino 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding link to images of Mediplex, in Florida, that I captured from the web in 2005 or so. There was one more location, but the picture of it didn't have the same orientation, so it didn't fit nicely. It was a storefront location. My guess is that Terri was at Point West, but that's just because its the only Medical building I see. The rest are storefronts. [[5]] MartinGugino 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Feb 8th update.

Adding this link to Mediplex residue still left in the internet. It is for the 6015 Pointe West #201 address. I found it by looking up the phone number from the picture: 941-782-0201. The information contained there about the facility is: Employee Size:10 to 19 / Sales: $500,000 - 1 Million / Type of Business: Physical Therapists / Computers: 2 - 9 PCs /

  • so clearly they are not using the entire building. Hmmm. I dont get it. Martin | talk • contribs 10:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like Mediplex is now Stryker Physiotherapy Associates, based on the Pointe West address, and the Publix Plaza (I75 and Rt 70). Martin | talk • contribs 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admitted means inpatient

Admitted to a hospital means she was an inpatient there. All inpatients get "24 hour care", but this doesn't mean more than there is someone in the facility that they are assigned to at the time. It does not mean that there is anyone in the room. Does that clarify the meaning of my change that you questioned? Twenty-four hour care tends to overstate, it seems to me, the number of hours of care she received. MartinGugino 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) What if I change it to "she was admitted as an inpatient..". Would that be ok? I don't think that they were as sophisticated as Morton Plant Rehabilitation Hospital in Clearwater. [6] MartinGugino 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Google map of Morton Plant Rehabilitation [[7]]

  • Change was made to article Jan 23rd it looks like. Martin | talk • contribs 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant find a Mediplex facility that takes inpatients. Does anyone know which Mediplex facility Terri Schiavo was in? Here is Mediplex's own website, one of five archived copies:(2004/Apr&Dec, 2005/Oct&Nov, 2006/Jan): [8] Martin | talk • contribs 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sun Healthcare (apparently the owner of Mediplex from 1995 to 1997) sells its (outpatient) clinics. [9]
Martin | talk • contribs 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sabal Palms

It looks like the transfer to Sabal Palms is a transfer to a facility of less care then Mediplex. They have 244 beds and 12 RNs, so that is 4 RNs a shift at most. There are 6 Physical Therapy equivalents. The comment that Terri received "regular" care, strictly speaking, only means periodic care, or regularly scheduled, or scheduled on a regular basis as opposed to an irregular basis. I change my car's oil on a regular basis. The staffing levels do not seem to support the implication that she receive therapy on a frequent basis. MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Google Map to Sabal Plams, showing Clearwater also [[10]] MartinGugino 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Citation for Sabal Palms facility capabilitites added Martin | tk 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A ratings cite listing Sabal Palms

Martin | talk • contribs 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DNR and "This Section Contradicts Itself" - how?

I don't see how this section contradicts itself. I just don't think it does.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Your recent edits look OK, I just thought I'd mention. Sometimes it can get very quiet around here.--GordonWatts 07:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thanks... The bot seems to be always around though. MartinGugino 08:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Archive_46&oldid=276611430"