text:
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 20

Terri's weight - Question about discrepency
In the Wiki Article Terri's highest weight is listed as 200 lbs. In Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush it is listed as 250 lbs. Wolfson's is the only court document I've found a weight listed in, so I am wondering where the 200 figure came from.

 * All the accounts I have read put her peak weight at "around" 200 lbs. From the photographic record, I can't see a point in the timeline when she could actually be 5' 4" and 250 lbs.  (Has anyone seen a photo of Terri at 250 lbs.?) The Wolfson Report has its own point of view and its own errors: Look a few lines down and you will see "bare witness" rather than "bear witness".  I don't think this is such a big deal.  "200" is the number that appears in numerous interviews with former friends from Philadelphia and her family, and only they would be in a position to know, so where Wolfson got "250" in December 2003 is a bit of a mystery.  I would go with the consensus of these independent interviews rather than Wolfson on this one. patsw 14:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know if an error of 250 is in the same vein as bare/bear. The latter is a simple homophone confusion that pops up as a typographic error to pretty much everybody. The former is something entirely different; 250 doesn't sound like 200, it doesn't look like it, and the keys are far enough apart to preclude it from being a simple mistype. I don't think they're similar at all in terms of errors; maybe a different example would be better. As it stands, it's possible that the estimation of "around" 200 lbs. just took her girth, not her weight, into account and fired off an approximation, 250 lbs. may have come from a more accurate source. Though the point you raise about 5'4" @ 250 lbs. is a good one, I don't think it's totally improbable. Professor Ninja 15:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Newsweek writes, "By 1981, in her senior year at an all-girls Roman Catholic high school, she had reached as much as 250 pounds—at which point she went on a NutriSystem diet and quickly lost about 100 pounds." The link is currently in the article after the weight, but somebody changed the weight to 200. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't there be more credence to the Wolfson report, as he had the opportunity to review the court record and--more importantly--her medical records (weight loss being an important part of her medical record, esp. for the medmal case), rather than anecdotal evidence (my god, how many people really tell their friends/family their real weight and are really accurate in assessing someone's weight unless they have reason to be an expert in that area?). (Also, there was a previous discussion on this in Archive 15:  Early life-Weight Loss Discrepency.)  Additionally, please be careful when bandying about the word "error"--there is a major difference between factual error and a typo, legal error and a typo, etc.  Thanks.--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 17:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unusually stiff neck
I had put this bullet list in last night and it was removed. Why I don't know. Symptoms of Bulemia and/or Anorexia

* Eating uncontrollably (Bulemia only), purging, strict dieting, fasting, vigorous exercise * Vomiting or abusing laxatives or diuretics in an attempt to lose weight. * Vomiting blood * Using the bathroom frequently after meals. * Preoccupation with body weight * Depression or mood swings. Feeling out of control. * Swollen glands in neck and face * Heartburn, bloating, indigestion, constipation * Irregular periods * Dental problems, sore throat * Weakness, exhaustion bloodshot eyes

From the link http://www.mamashealth.com/bulimia.asp. Please note that dental problems (loss of calcium) could also explain the joint and leg problems. Wjbean 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length

 * Am I the only one who thinks the article is way too long? By just looking at how long it is, I feel scared by the thought of reading it. No offence against Terri and her family, but she was not that important. I mean, this must be the biggest article on Wikipedia. R.I.P. Terri.
 * EliasAlucard|Talk 16:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are 100% correct in regards to the article length, and we are in the process of splitting the article to bring it down to size. --Viriditas | Talk 15:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I copied some stuff into the section about the relationship between Michael and teh Schindlers. The hope is that soem of the stuff could be taken out of the section specific to Michael or specific to the Schindlers, since it involves both sides. I haven't done that yet. won't get to it tonight probably. So, right now, it looks like duplicate text. Sorry, but if you're looking for places to trim, that would be one place. The valentine's day argument should really be in the relationship section, not just the Schindlers. FuelWagon 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Web Accessibility
Text of 1998 petition to remove Terri's feeding tube, i.e., discontinue "artifical life support" and "artificial sustenance"

Please comment if you cannot access this linked page or if you believe it to be a forgery, or if you know where there is another archive of it. patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't access that file. --Viriditas | Talk 15:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can access the file fully; furthermore I stand corrected on two grounds, first the assumption that Michael would have inherited a portion of the estate had he divorced prior to her death. Apparently Florida law does cover such a proviso, and second this seems to be the basis for Michael's assertion that Terri's parents also had a financial conflict of interest, which I had previously dismissed out of hand. Consider my foot squarely in my mouth. Professor Ninja 18:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * The claim that the Schindler's were motivated by their financial interest in the estate has been consistently denied by them. Since they had maintained from the start their intention to sustain the life of and help rehabilitate Terri, it is certain that they would spend the malpractice settlement funds -- if it had been made available to them -- for the duration for which the award was made: for the remainder of her natural life even if she did not recover more brain function.  Michael, as we have learned, wanted to implement what he characterized as Terri's wishes to die by dehydration and starvation.  (Something he failed to disclose during the malpractice trial.)  If such wishes were implemented in 1996, his financial interest would be substanially greater.  To accuse the Schindlers of a desire to become "rich" on the malpractice award is after all this is cruel and nonsense. Terri's death  by court order in 1996 would have yielded a substantial payday for Michael. On the other hand, for the Schindlers to have been awared guardianship in 1996 would mean a long and uncertain future and perhaps a substantial financial burden in the care of Terri until the end of her natural life.  patsw 18:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The same criticisms apply to the characterization of Michael Schiavo. My point wasn't that these accusations were right or wrong, it was that these accusations have some ground in legal reality. I had previously dismissed Michael's assertion that the Schindlers stood to profit as patently ridiculous, however it seems such a situation is possible under Florida law. Furthermore, Michael didn't assert that Terri stated she wanted to die by dehydration and starvation -- to claim this is, ironically, the very type of characterization you seem to take issue with. Michael asserted that Terri would not want to be kept on life support if she was unsalvagable. To state that he didn't claim this during the malpractice trial is a moot point; Michael petitioned the court to remove the feeding tube after Terri's physician indicated Terri would not recover well after the malpractice trial. It would be 1) irrelevant to the malpractice trial to offer such testimony and 2) irrelevant to the idea that Michael, during the malpractice trial, may very well have believed that Terri stood a chance for recovery which changed when her physician informed him should would not stand such a chance. Be careful where you're going with this, you're bordering on becoming the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 18:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I find the POV you show to be inherent in referring to a feeding tube to be "life support". There is no consensus among the American public that a feeding tube is at the same level of intervention in the process of living and dying as mechanical assistance to replace the organic function of a heart, lung, kidney, or liver.  Clarity in using the term "feeding tube" to refer to "life support" as the court petitions do is essential to removing POV from the article.

 * Another POV running through the article is that the would not recover condition is certain in Terri's particular case or even relevant to the intrinsic worth of human life in public policy and medical ethics. While it would not have been relevant to disclose these wishes during the trial, it would have been relevant for Michael to diclose these wishes to the Schindler family in 1990 rather than 1998.  Finally, the fact that this particular court found no inherent value in Terri's life because of testimony that Terri would not recover does make it a neutral point of view.  It merely makes it one point of view among many.  patsw 19:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Right, and very well put! Except that I think that it is uncontested (though irrelevant) that Terri could never recover, meaning that she would never be fully normal.  However, it is not established that her condition could not have improved, with treatment/therapy.  Quite a few physicians and speech therapists gave their professional opinions, some of them under oath, that they believed that improvement in her condition was possible.  Their expectations for the extent of that improvement varied, but there was one way to find out, and that was to try.  However, she was not given any therapy at all since 1992. NCdave 00:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Florida law defines a feeding tube as life support. That isn't POV. If you wanted to go for the stretch then there's no real consensus among the American public on anything. However, since the American public isn't relevant to this, only the Florida public, then all that matters is Florida law. Which says that a feeding tube is life support. Period. As for your assertion that people who contend that removal of life support constitutes worth of human life is patently ridiculous; you're spouting off the fallacy of equivocation. Nobody but the most degraded of vandals (and even then they're in the vast minority of vandals) claims that Terri Schiavo's life had no worth. You're very, very rapidly turning into the next NCdave. Professor Ninja 19:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know how to fix the POV problem around this. In the "feeding tube" section, I started out by saying that Florida law defines a feeding tube to be life support. Those who wanted to keep Terri alive preferred the term "feeding tube" because it is emotive. food is emotive, so is the empathetic response of readers to think about "starving to death". Never mind that Terri was PVS and can't feel anything. So, "feeding tube" is good for their POV. Those who thought Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive in her condition likely preferred the term "life support" precisely because it is less emotive and more connotative. Life Support connotates images of a bank of machines keeping someone alive, someone who is comatose or unconscious, and someone who is never going to recover. I'm not sure if teh article should say "life support" or "feeding tube" always, or if the Schindlers invocation of emotive language should be reflected in the article or what. I believe that Terri would have never recovered and I believe that she was PVS, unconscious, unaware, and couldn't feel. And mainly because she fits the connotation of "life support" more than she fits the emotive image of "feeding tube", I'd tend towards "life support". As to the "would not recover" comment, I know several neutral doctors diagnosed Terri as such, and that's a NPOV fact to report. non-neutral sources can be quoted to say otherwise, but their bias needs to be noted in teh article as well. FuelWagon 20:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Florida law says its life support; thus life support is the correct term. Life support connotes nothing but something which supports life beyond the means of the body. If this is an iron lung with "banks of machines" or simple intubation is not relevant. Life support is the correct NPOV term. Professor Ninja 20:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the section of florida statute that defines artificial sustenance and hydration as a "life-prolonging procedure." It is from F.S. 765.101.

10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

In the first paragraph, I'd prefer something along the lines of "The judicial and legislative battles surrounding the discontinuation of Schiavo's artificially provided sustenance and hydration generated tremendous media coverage during the last two weeks of her life and prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights."

It is most legally precise. I realize I'll be chided for wanting to use a euphemism to describe the situation, but please believe that is not my intent. My intent is to be as precise as possible and that precision involves using the same language that Florida Statutes use; indeed, sticking to the statute language necessarily resolves POV disputes, since it is the law of the land. I can see, though, that the sentence is awkward, so, feel free to mess with it if you'd like! (:--Minaflorida 20:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I would greatly like to hug you for that, Minaflorida. What a wonderful legal eagle you are. Hopefully this will tone down the accusations of POV on this subject. Is it correct, then, or euphemistic to refer to "life-prolonging procedure" as "life support"? Professor Ninja 20:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it would be correct or not. Florida statutes do not use the terminology "life support" but its definition is nearly identical to the statute's definition of a "life-prolonging procedure."  The danger in using "life support" as opposed to "life-prolonging procedure" is that it is not the proper legal term for artificially provided sustenance and nutrion--much like partial-birth abortion was not an appropriate legislative term because it was not the proper medical term for the process described in Federal legislation, but I digress.  ( Unless we can verify that the majority of doctors in the state of Florida actually refer to life-prolonging procedures as "life support," (which I surmise is true, but that's not good enough) I'd lean toward using the bulky and awkward, yet accurate terms.  I am not entirely opposed to using "life support," as it is factually accurate.  Feeding tube, however, is accurate as well.  Since there has been such a charged discussion on these terms, I think it's best to make everyone happy (presumably) by using the specific legal terms.  "Artificially provided sustenance and hydration" refers both to the fact that it was life support and the fact that it was a feeding tube.  I'm no legal eagle.  I'm just a language lover.  Additonally, I work for the Legislature and have gotten really good at navigating our statutes.  (:  Thanks for the compliment.--Minaflorida 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * there was actually a discussion on this subject already -- see archive 15 life support v. feeding & hydration where I point out life-prolonging procedures is the technical term in Florida, although life-support is equally acceptable, quote the statute, touch upon In re Browning, etc. Using Florida's precise term doesn't seem to make anyone happy (except, apparently, those of us who live and work in Florida).  Good luck (keep trying!)Mia-Cle 21:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, I absolutely missed that in all the clutter, Mia-Cle. Actually I think this has been argued ad nauseum by everybody by now, so. Professor Ninja 22:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * It has been argued ad nauseum, and probably will continue to be ad infinitum. oh well.  (It's really arguing a distinction without a difference--although I haven't done the legal research, I sincerely doubt that there is any legal distinction between "life-supporting," "life-sustaining," "life-maintaining," or "life-prolonging.")  However, I am very happy to see "life-prolonging procedures" in the article as those are the words we use in Fla.  It'll be interesting to see how long it lasts (call me a cynic).Mia-Cle 01:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Cynic? Realist. Sadly. Professor Ninja 02:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Paraphrase vs. primary source
I believe the paraphrase of the discussion of the 1993 urinary tract infection to be POV and the remedy I propose is to insert the actual Wolfson report text from which the paraphrase is derived. I am not inserting my own paraphrase but the text of the report -- how can that itself introduce POV? Over and over again editors have substituted actual external text for user submitted text to remove POV. What's different about this case? patsw 15:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, your "remedy" involved removing content from the report that you didn't like. --Viriditas  | Talk 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legal Grist for the mill
This link, http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, provides a detailed breakdown of all legal actions regarding Terri and Michael Shaivo. It's long, but is worth the read. Wjbean 15:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patsw - since you'll be curious why I reverted your edit
It was the definition of bloat. Adding length to the article for pure speculation is not an encyclopaedic entry whatsoever. Putting in that Felos claimed Schiavo was cremated doesn't contribute anything. As far as I can ascertain, there's absolutely no reason, no matter how far fetched, to lie about cremating somebody. Therefore we take the date of cremation prima facie. Also, saying there's no news on the burial is pointless. There's no news on alot of things; you don't go updating everything for what has no news on it. If and when this becomes relevant, then it belongs in the article. Professor Ninja 18:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * In my judgment, (1) It would proper at the start of a new section to use her first name, this is simply a concern of style. (2) News articles that you can see in News Google couched the cremation in speculative language -- so yes there was doubt. I ascertained from a news report of Felos press release that confirmed the cremation -- whom I am not doubting on this point.  (3) I made the judgment that for 10 days to pass without her ashes being buried after a public promise to do so is significant and encyclopaedic.  What's your threshold for taking note of the non-fulfillment of this promise? Is it 20 days, 30 days, a year?

 * It would be helpful for me as well as other editors, Professor Ninja, to define bloat to avoid a problem like this in the future. patsw 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (1) I never took issue with that, anywhere, ever. (2) Wikipedia articles are not news reports. That's what WikiNews is for. (3) Counter-point: What's your threshhold for fulfilling the promise? 9 days, 1 day, an hour? No, the threshold is if and when it becomes reasonable to include based on common sense. If it comes up that Michael Schiavo has not and does not intend to bury Terri, then it is relevant.

 * It would be helpful for you as well as other editors, Patsw, if you looked up what wikipedia is not and followed common sense and logical guidelines to avoid a problem like this in the future. Professor Ninja 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Uncited statements? Under "Michael Shiavo"
Where does the information in the below paragraph come from? There is no cite associated with it.
 * On May 1, 2000, a court hearing was cancelled after Schiavo said he would sign an agreement that his wife will get necessary medical treatment at a hospice instead of a hospital or a long-term care facility, in violation of the malpractice settlement. Then on June 18, after reneging on his agreement, Schiavo signed an amended agreement stating he will not withdraw or terminate his wife's medical care or treatment for potential fatal infections, without prior notice to the court.

Has anyone seen the malpractice settlement? How do we know that the agreement referred to was in violation of it? Moreover, I find the statement "after reneging on his agreement" unnecssarily pejorative and therefore prejudicial and POV. Do we have evidence of the second agreement? LRod 216.76.216.142 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't add this nor would I. Part of the issues faced in 2000 was the concern that Terri would receive less than appropriate care in a hospice than a registered nursing care facility.  As part of an agreement to cease litigating her transfer from Palm Gardens Nursing Home to Woodside Hospice, the agreement to treat Terri for infections was drawn up.   The interval from May 1 to June 18 to get a simple agreement signed is used in Terri's advocacy sites as an example of Michael's bad faith, pettiness, and indifference to Terri's suffering.

 * As for the malpractice settlement, as with all the documents which the court or the Schindlers did not make public, Michael hasn't made this public nor does he have an obligation to do so. This is the primary source problem I mentioned yesterday.  How to judge what people say about documents which we are not likely to see.  The claim is made that by accepting the malpractice award for Terri's care, the guardian had to provide care to a stipulated standard which a hospice did not have.

 * With reference the text that's been quoted, the relevant part is that Terri was transferred, the Schindlers objected, and that Michael and the Schindlers were divided on the question of treating Terri for infections. It may be redundant to all the disputed claims before and after June 2000 to include this. patsw 21:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know about the legal requirement for a stipulated standard of care, but I do know that Michael pledged, under oath, in November, 1992, to bring Terri home as soon as he had the resources to care for her at home, and to care for Terri for the rest of her life. Two months later, he had 3/4 $million available in a medical trust account designated for Terri's care and rehabilitation.  But he did not bring her home, and he never permitted a dime of that money to purchase therapy for Terri.

 * Here's the relevant part of the November, 1992 transcript:

Q.   You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself? MS. I see myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife. Q.   Where do you want to take care of your wife? MS. I want to bring her home. Q.   If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that? MS. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat. Q.   How do you feel about being married to Terri now. MS. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my marriage vows. Q.   You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that? MS. I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in 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.

 * Read the last three sentences again: ''"I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
 * Note that when he said that, Terri had been incapacitated for 2-3/4 years, already.
 * That was a promise that Michael made, under oath, in open court... and broke just two months later.
 * Even so, it was five more years before he "remembered" that Terri had expressed a wish to not be kept alive in her disabled state. That "memory" didn't come to Michael Schiavo until he hired George Felos. NCdave 00:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * More whack-a-mole logic from NCdave. Dave has advanced that Michael should have divorced Terri and left her to her parents (as always with this charlatan, references available upon request); then he advances that he should have kept his marriage vows. He advances that Michael didn't go to nursing school to take care of his wife (as always with this charlatan, references available upon request); then he advances that the testimony is valid as an oath to gauge his future behaviour and part of that oath includes Michael going to nursing school and caring for his wife. It cannot be both; he cannot rightly honour his marriage vows and rightly divorce her, he cannot have rightly gone to school to care for Terri and simoultaneously not have done it. NCdave wants us to pick and choose where Michael is being honest and he wants those areas to be fluid and dynamic, honest one day and binding, lies the next day, to suit his POV. Professor Ninja 01:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 20


text:
Talk:Latimer, Buckinghamshire

It is a common fallacy, that seems to be implied in this article, that the Cheynes (such as the unfeasibly long-lived Thomas Cheyne) gave their name to Chenies (the place). In actual fact it derives from the earlier and unrelated holders of the 12th - 13th centuries, the Cheney family. However the Cheynes did give their name to Cheyne walk in Chelsea.

 * Can you quote references for this please? The Victorian History of the County of Buckinghamshire by Lipscombe agrees with the article, as does the Magna Britannica. -- Francs2000 | Talk  16:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

sits on the border between
If it's a genuine local government division, it can't be in two counties. I suspect it's in Buckinghamshire and it borders on Hertfordshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Latimer, Buckinghamshire


text:
Talk:Rib

Ribs
How many ribs do adults have? 138.34.88.170 (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rib


text:
Julián Herranz Casado

Julián Herranz Casado (born 31 March 1930) is a Spanish cardinal of the Catholic Church. He served as President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in the Roman Curia from 1994 to 2007, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 2003 by Pope John Paul II.

He is one of two cardinals – along with Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne – who belong to Opus Dei; Herranz Casado is the organisation's highest-ranking member in the Church's hierarchy. He is also considered one of the foremost experts in canon law, and to have been one of the Vatican's most influential figures during the period shortly before the death of Pope John Paul II.

Biography
Born in Baena in the Province of Córdoba, Herranz Casado joined Opus Dei in 1949 after reading a conspiratorial story about it as editor of a university newspaper. He was ordained as a priest of Opus Dei on 7 August 1955 by Bishop Juan Ricote Alonso, after obtaining doctorates in medicine from the Universities of Barcelona and Navarra and in canon law from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. He taught canon law at the University of Navarra and travelled worldwide on behalf of Opus Dei until 1960, when he began to work for the Roman Curia.

During the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), Herranz Casado served as an assistant of study on the commissions for discipline of clergy and the Christian people. In 1984, he was appointed secretary for the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, which in 1988 became the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. On 15 December 1990, he was appointed titular bishop of Vertara by Pope John Paul II. Herranz Casado received his episcopal consecration on 6 January 1991 from John Paul II, with Archbishops Giovanni Battista Re and Justin Francis Rigali serving as co-consecrators, in St. Peter's Basilica. On 9 December 1994, he was named President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and raised to the rank of archbishop.

He was created Cardinal-Deacon of S. Eugenio by John Paul II in the consistory of 21 October 2003.

According to Vatican journalist Sandro Magister, by the end of 2004, Herranz Casado was "constantly gaining influence" in the internal affairs of the Vatican. Along with Joseph Ratzinger, Angelo Sodano, and the Pope's private secretary, Archbishop Stanisław Dziwisz, Herranz Casado is believed to have been largely responsible for leading the Curia at times when the Pope was incapacitated by illness. Herranz finds conspiracy theories about Opus Dei particularly offensive, claiming that it has "no hidden agenda. The only policy is the message of Christ".

Upon the death of John Paul II on 2 April 2005, Herranz Casado and all major Vatican officials automatically lost their positions. Herranz Casado was confirmed as president of Legislative Texts by Pope Benedict XVI on the following 21 April. He was one of the cardinal electors in the 2005 papal conclave. Though not generally considered a strong candidate for the papacy himself, he was described as a highly influential insider with the potential to play the role of a "kingmaker" at the conclave. It has been reported that, both before and after Pope John Paul's death, Herranz convened meetings of cardinals at a villa in Grottarossa, a suburb of Rome. Pope Benedict XVI named Francesco Coccopalmerio to replace Herranz as President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts on 15 February 2007.

In March 2012 Pope Benedict XVI established a Commission of Cardinals to investigate leaks of reserved and confidential documents on television, in newspapers, and in other communications media (in what is known as the Vatileaks scandal). It first met on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. Herranz served as the chair, and was accompanied by Cardinals Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi.

Having been a cardinal-deacon for ten years, he was promoted to cardinal-priest by Pope Francis on 12 June 2014.

title: Julián Herranz Casado


text:
Edinburgh Central

Edinburgh Central may refer to:

 * Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency), a constituency of the Scottish Parliament, at Holyrood, 1999 to present
 * Edinburgh Central (UK Parliament constituency), a constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, at Westminster, 1885 to 2005

title: Edinburgh Central


text:
Rural Metro

Rural Metro Fire, founded in 1948, is an American private fire department that provides fire protection and emergency medical services to individual homeowners and commercial businesses in unincorporated locations throughout the United States, primarily under a subscription-based model. Municipalities and fire districts also contract Rural Metro to provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services.

History

The company was founded by Lou Witzeman, a newspaper reporter, after he witnessed a house fire near his home just outside the city limits of Phoenix, Arizona in 1948. There was no fire department established for the area; so Witzeman, feeling something had to be done, purchased a fire engine and proceeded to go door to door asking residents to subscribe to the new fire service by paying an annual membership fee (in lieu of taxes). This was the origin of the Rural Fire Department, later renamed Rural Metro Fire Department. In the 1980s, the company expanded into ambulance service. Rural Metro Fire began listing shares in 1993 on the NASDAQ exchange under the stock symbol RURL.

In 2011 Investment Fund Warburg Pincus purchased Rural Metro in a $438 million cash deal. By early 2013 Rural Metro filed for Chapter 11 restructuring in Federal Court in Delaware after missing an interest payment on its debt. The reorganization would see bondholders infuse $135 million in new capital. Some contracts were renegotiated but no services were affected.

In 2015, Rural Metro Fire merged with American Medical Response and senior management was released or merged into the parent corporation. In 2018, both American Medical Response and Rural Metro Fire became part of Global Medical Response.

Community fire protection services
Rural Metro Fire provides fire protection services primarily under a subscription-based model to individual homeowners and commercial property owners in unincorporated areas that do not offer municipal fire protection services in various areas of the United States. These areas are not included within municipal fire department boundaries or paid for by property taxes. It is the business model that Rural Metro Fire was founded upon. In other areas, municipalities contract with Rural Metro Fire partners to provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services. In the event that Rural Metro Fire Department provides services to non-subscribers either in or around the communities they serve, the property owner is billed after the incident to recoup costs associated with the emergency.

Specialty Fire Division
Rural Metro also provides fire protection, safety, and security services for airports, industrial facilities, and wildland fire prevention and protection. The division maintains membership in the following organizations: National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC); Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Working Group (ARFF WG); American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE); AAAE-Great Lakes Chapter; Louisiana Airport Managers and Associates (LAMA), and ISNetworld.

title: Rural Metro


text:
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 21

Valentine's Day rewritten
The original valentines day argument is presented in pretty much from Mary Schindler's point of view. I removed it and placed it here, for review:

 * The cause of the breakdown in communication between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo is controversial. There was an apparent confrontation on St. Valentine's Day of 1993. On that day, Michael Schiavo was in Terri's nursing home room studying to become a nurse. When the Schindlers arrived, Michael maintains that Bob Schindler began to demand money, became belligerent, and stormed out of the room. According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance.  While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter. They chose Randall Terry as their official spokesman.

I replaced it with excerpts from the wolfson and pearse reports which are a bit more neutral. I also moved it to the section "family relationship" so it isn't specific to the Schindlers any more. I'd like to trim down some of the stuff that is in the Michael section but should be in the "relationship" section.

Complaints about the cut, move, and rewrite? FuelWagon 23:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't find the original to be from Mary Schindler's POV but only supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive for the split between him and the Schindler's. The Schindler's claim that with the money in hand, Michael immediately changed from seeking rehabilitation for Terri to seeking to hasten her death by denying treatment to Terri and blocking the Schindler's access to her medical records and restricting visitation.  Michael as guardian was acting within his legal rights and he kept this guardianship and right to inherit the estate in spite of rather than because of testimony like this from the 1993 hearing:

 * Attorney: When you made the decision that you were not going to treat Terri’s infection and you were, in effect, going to allow her to die, did you think that you had any obligation to tell her parents?

 * Michael: To answer that question, I probably would have let them know sooner or later.

 * Attorney: You never did let them know, though, did you?

 * Michael: No.

 * Left untreated, the infection would eventually have caused sepsis and Terri's death. Fortunately the nursing home eventually gave Terri the antibiotics anyway, and she recovered. It's details like this lead one believe that the big change in his attitude came when the check cleared in early 1993 rather than years later at the time of the first petition to withdraw the feeding tube.

 * For the revision of the VD section, it's a huge improvement. If I could I would change "agressive treatments" to be "rehabilition which had been deferred because of lack of funds" which removes the need to make an editorial judgement about calibrating from "ordinary" to "agressive".

 * So you don't think comments like According to Mary Schindler's later testimony, Michael Schiavo had promised to reimburse the Schindlers for letting him live rent-free at their condominium and for other financial assistance. While conversing about financial issues, the Schindlers suggested that they could now afford specialized care for Terri with the money from the malpractice suit. According to Mary Schindler, Michael denied this request and threatened that the Schindlers would never again see their daughter are POV? I guess it must be us anti-Terri Michael Schiavo partisans gettin' uppity. Professor Ninja 07:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * By this:
 * supporting Michael Schiavo's claim that greed was the motive
 * you meant supporting Mary's view that 'greed' was the motive, correct? Since it's quoting Mary's words, it is by definition, Mary's point of view. Unless you think that Mary's view is Neutral Point Of View, in which case, please read up on NPOV. The reason I changed it to the two reports submitted by independent parties was to have a more NPOV take on what happened, since the two people appointed by the courts are more likely to be truly neutral. FuelWagon 15:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Splitting article
This article is getting seriously lengthy. I propose turning it into a private/public split as was earlier proposed by another user who's name eludes me. Essentialy one could make an article about the Public involvement in the Terri Schiavo case with sections 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 & 9.6. This would be an intelligent fork in the article as the rest of the sections deal with the private aspects of the Schiavo case. It would at least help in reducing it in size. Any comments? Professor Ninja 00:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

to Ann Heneghan
Yes, I checked the diffs. I reverted your edit along with the vandalism. Which was not my intention, as there was nothing wrong with your edits. I apologize. Professor Ninja 23:08, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Ann Heneghan 23:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The NCDave situation
I've been watching this war (and responding a time or two myself) for some time. I believe I was the first to make the observation that NCDave was merely a troll, and recent events have completely erased any doubt in my mind. On usenet and other fora we have found the most effective method for dealing with persons of that ilk are the age old practice of shunning. Do not respond to him. Do not acknowledge him. Do not rise to your own defense when he attacks, misquotes, or otherwise abuses you or the article or the process. All we need to do is watch for his stealth oh-dark-hundred vandalisms and revert as quickly as possible. He is clearly starved for attention and is not worthy of one nanosecond of anyone's time. LRod 216.76.216.65 23:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not misquote, I do not vandalize, I do not engage in name-calling, and I do not appreciate your personal attack, LRod. NCdave 00:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ordinarily I would follow my own advice and ignore the trolling, but since others have given me leave, I'll say this: you do, you do, you do, and I don't care. LRod 216.76.216.65 01:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * LRod, the difference between here and usenet and other forums is that NCdave is allowed to run free editing other user comments and the article; there is no choice but to respond to his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of misquoting, his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of vandalism, and his clearly documented despite his totally undocumented assertions otherwise instances of name-calling. I appreciate that you're acting with the best intentions at heart, unfortunately without directly engaging him we risk a) reverting pertinent edits he makes which will only give him ammunition to complain, b) allow him even more time to do those edits while he's not distracted with this talk page, c) allow other users to be bamboozled by his campaign of misinformation (he's managed to sucker a few new editors doing nothing more than assuming good faith on his part with outright lies, which are, of course, documented and available upon request). I know NCdave is a troll, but in a wiki environment, we are unfortunately forced to acknowledge the trolls. Ignoring them well only make them so, so much worse. Imagine a vindictive troll with a vandal bot or too much free time "punishing" wikipedians by screwing up all the articles they can find. The best thing to do is to continue documenting evidence against him on the rfc page and get a succinct ruling. Professor Ninja 00:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey LRod. yeah, I know the drill. Generally, when he rants about black helicopters and strange crop circles I just ignore him. When he accuses me of trashing an entire religion and misquotes me in the process, I lay into him. That's what a troll wants, I know. I must learn the lesson to please not feed the trolls. FuelWagon 00:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Natural Means
Judge Greer denies a motion to provide food and water to Terri by "natural means" here: http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/030805orderdenyfood.pdf

Unfortunately, it references another motion, which I don't have a URL for.

The order to deny food and water by natural means: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder030805.pdf StuartGathman 14:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone added it to the intro saying Greer prohibited foor and water by natural means. I tweaked it to say he denied a motion for food and water by natural means. but I would like to add the explanation. Unfortunately, Greer references some other motion which I don't have a URL for and he also says "Both require an experimental procedure". Does anyone have plain language explanation of why the motion was denied? It sounds like it is a duplicate of another motion, and the otehr motion was denied for some reason. FuelWagon 07:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There is a question as to whether Terri was capable of swallowing on her own. Maybe that is why it would be an experimental procedure to feed her water orally? Just a guess. Kingturtle 07:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I think Tropix is biased towards the Shindler's point of view. The original text that Tropix put in the intro was that Judge Greer denied food and water by natural means, which could be interpreted by readers to mean, they could feed her orally, but he wouldn't let them. I'm also not sure if the ruling that she wouldn't wanted to have been kept alive in this kind of state overrules whether or not feeding her "naturally" or not really mattered. If Terri was PVS, then is somehow forcing food down her throat while she is totally reflexive and non-aware, is that substituting an esophogus for a plastic tube and its still life support, just without the surgery? As far as I know, Tropix hasn't read anything on this page, but I think Tropix is the one who ought to find a URL to the second motion that Greer references. FuelWagon 11:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Fuel Wagon, why can't you leave it to the reader to judge the judge? The POV you advocate is the certainty that Greer's ruling reflected Terri's wishes to suffer 13 days of dehyration and starvation in order to die.  While the court order exists, the certainty that is was her wish does not exist.  This is the major POV problem with the entire article - unjustified certainty of claims made by Michael Schiavo.  This is always butressed by the identifying food and water with life support which remains politically contentious and presented in the article as if it were not so.

 * Re: Judge the Judge. Facts are facts and judgements are judgements. Facts belong in wikipedia. The wording of Greer denying food and water left out facts to allow the reader broader range of judgements. Fill in all the facts, and fewer judgements are possible. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * as to "the certainty that it was her wish does not exist", you cannot state that by itself and be NPOV. The entire body of facts around what she wanted, need be presented together in one location so that claims and assertions and accusations can be held in proper context to the facts. The primary fact is that the courts ruled that Terri would not want to be kept on life support. Then claims that Terri said this and Terri said that have some context to live in. But those claims can only be asserted by the main parties involved, Michael or the parents. Assertions are not the place to allow the writer to say "yeah, but this is really what happened". After the fact of the court ruling, the primary assertions of both sides has next precedence in "weight". The whole point of a courtroom is that you get fairness, cross examination, objective interrogation, and a respect to the rule of law. Far less "weight" then is given to third parties not directly involved. Iyer's affadavit cannot be quoted out of context without mentioning the facts that fail to align with her assertions and the fact that Greer ruled it "incredible to say the least". The point is to let the reader judge Iyer's statements, but in context of all the other information, not in a vacuum. NCdave, for example, said Pearson asserted there was a causal link between malpractice money and Michael's change of attitude. But that wasn't fact. It was HIS representation and interpretation of what Pearson said. Pearson never said anything about there being a link from one to the other. He said there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest. The reader must be able to judge the facts, not judge the judgements of the wikipedian author. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh? Who's "Pearson?"  I never said anything about anybody named Pearson. NCdave 06:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whether or not it matters according to your point of view, the order itself to "cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the Ward, THERESA SCHIAVO at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005." does not permit any attempt to naturally feed Terri. (i.e. to introduce food and water through the mouth.)  The background Tropix cites is that Terri was not given a swallow test or any therapy to rehabilitate her ability to eat and drink through the mouth at the insistance of Michael Schiavo.  Once that was established by the order of the court, Greer using the principle that he had ruled on it earlier to now deny any natural food or water to be given to her after March 18 2005.  The order denying the motion as you requested. patsw 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the link. Will look at it later today. No time right now. FuelWagon 17:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Read it. Wasn't what I was looking for. Greer mentions some other thing and says "if that is upheld, this motion isn't needed. If that is rejected, then the courts should use this to do indirectly what it would not allow directly" I cannot find the "it" that he is talking about. FuelWagon 22:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the legalease going on in this motion being rejected? Greer references some other document or some other motion or something, and I don't know how to trace back to the original from his cryptographic text. I want to know what legal basis was to reject the motion, leaving it as "just rejected" leaves too many interpretations open. need more facts. FuelWagon 23:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * can you be more specific as to which motions/orders you need "translated" (date)? there were an incredible no. of post-trial motions and related orders...if you give me reference points, then i might could take a stab at "translating" the "legalese" (really, it's not cryptic)  i don't think that this particular county has an online docket, which would list all the motions in chronological order (go to the county clerk's website).  however, abstractappeal.com has a number of the motions, findlaw has a few, and one of the univ websites (UM?) had a fairly comprehensive list with links.  (also, see the life support v. nutrition and hydration  discussion above for a small, minor "translation" of one motion)--Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 00:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It was the link patsw provided: To quote the mumbo jumbo in question:
 * "it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents Fla R. Civ. P rule 1.540(b)(5) motion on medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used fr both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure."
 * I have no clue what he's talking about. FuelWagon 00:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Greer was apparently referring to the provision of food and water by natural means as an "experimental procedure" because it had not been resolved whether or not Terri's swallowing capabilities were sufficient to enable her to be sustained by food and water provided by natural means. But the reason that question had not been resolved was that Judge Greer, himself, forbade the swallowing therapy and swallowing tests that would have resolved it. NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You can read the motion for feeding by natural means (which the judge denied):.

 * The motion (which I paraphrase) claimed :

 * that Terri could swallow saliva and water from toothbrushing,

 * that natural ingestion of food and water would not violate the court order to remove "artificial life support" (this is what the court ruled she did not want, based on the hearsay comments attributed to her),

 * that denying natural ingestion would make the court's orders penal instead of executory,

 * if granted, then either Terri would eat and survive, or not.

 * The judge denied this motion. If "natural means" are not life support under Florida law, does this leave Terri's death either euthanasia or assisted suicide?  Are either legal in Florida?

 * Tropix 03:35, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

 * No, neither are legal in Florida.  NCdave 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So that answers the second question. That just leaves the first question for someone to answer. Tropix 06:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

 * (1) It would be more appropriate to write that the judge denied the "Respondents' [Schindlers'] Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission To Provide Terri Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the Assisted Nutrition and Hydration Are Discontinued" on the grounds that this motion was identical to the already filed Respondents' 1.540(b)(5) Motion.  That is, Respondents submitted to the court motions that were different in name only--there were no distinctions in the substance of the motions.  Therefore, it is appropriate to deny the one motion because it is duplicative/repetitive/redundant.  But please see my comment (3) below, that it is not appropriate to be parsing these motions and accompanying orders out of the broader context of the judicial proceedings.

 * (2) A Rule 1.540 Motion is a Motion seeking relief from judgment, decrees, or orders.  This particular motion was apparently arguing 1.540(b)(5), that the judgment/decrees/orders should be vacated (i.e., voided) because that "judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application."  Frankly, it cannot be analyzed (will stay "mumbo jumbo") without the actual motion or the accompanying memorandum of law to explain why they advocate this legal argument.  [I'm guessing that maybe it might have been that it was no longer equitable?  Or that they were unable to argue 1.540(b)(1),(2) or (3) because the time to do so had passed and/or there were no new arguments/evidence?  but that's all conjecture without more.]

 * (3) This is arguing minutiae and is bordering on the nonsensical.  One point of view is parsing--quoting out of context--from a series, and an exceptionally long series, of motions and corresponding orders, in order to make a political statement.  Which is great for advocacy, but not for neutrality.  For a writing comprehension standpoint, it is probably best tackled by analyzing the post-trial activity;  in this instance, grouping the motions together and explaining them as post-trial motions filed by the parties, on what grounds, and the reasons for denying/granting, etc.  --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Mia-Cle, wow, thanks. I think I understand it a little better. So, I'm still wondering about the neutrality of the current article's mention of Greer denying food and water by natural means, because I'm trying to figure out in what context it was denied. From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct? I'm not sure if I understand if you found the original motion somewhere (URL?) and/or Greer's reason for rejecting it. Did you find the other motion he mentioned? If the motion cannot be put in context (i.e. if the other motion and the reason for its denial cannot be included), I'm a little wary of leaving mention of this motion being denied, since it comes with implications that Terri could eat food and water on her own, and Greer simply denied it. Since I think you have a much better grasp on this than I do, do you have any suggestions for achieving NPOV when the article mentions this motion being denied? FuelWagon 18:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * uh, okay, give me a few days to look this over and get back to you. [I'm doing this in my free time; or, in lawyerspeak, not billable time.]  (In the meantime, if you really want to understand the legal bits, i highly, highly recommend abstractappeal.com--the home page, not just the Schiavo page.  You have to scroll down to get to the late March-early April entries concerning the Schiavo case, but it's worth it.  The writer strikes me as one sharp attorney and a very good writer, with an aptitude for translating the legalese.  Some entries you might want to look at are April 9 (hearsay), and then in late March/early April there are entries on the Iyers affidavit, more on hearsay, living wills, and so on;  he also posted when motions were filed (with links) and orders issued (with links) and some explanation. If you are writing any of the aspects of the legal case, his explanations might clear up some of your confusion as to how or why something happened.)Mia-Cle 20:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * FuelWagon says: From what you're saying, I think Greer denied the motion because it was exactly identical to another motion he had denied, but the Schindlers had changed the title. Is that correct?

 * You're getting there now, and you're at about the same place I am. (:  I do not know precisely which motion the order is referring to when it says that the material in the new motion is already a part of a previous motion.  It does seem clear that the previous motion had not yet been ruled on at the time the subsequent motion was denied, since the order explains what the result would be if the original motion was eventually denied and what the result would be if it was accepted (probably not the proper term, but, oh well).  My suggestion would be to e-mail Matt Conigliaro at abstractappeal.com and ask him if he can clarify which motion the denial we're talking about was referring to.  He's really helpful and can usually point one in the right direction re documents.--Minaflorida 20:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My best guess, which is at least somewhere to start, is that this is the earlier motion that the later denial of motion refers to: document here

The denial order (the one dated March 8) mentions that the content of the motion is part and parcel of the previous "motion on medical evaluations." I believe the court is talking about the motion where the Schindlers asked for new tests. That motion was itself denied on March 9: document here That would be consistent with the language in the March 8 denial, as it refers to the previous motion as if it had not yet been ruled on.--Minaflorida 20:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yep, I think this is in refernce to the other motion that the Schindlers filed. Greer mentions that the schindlers want more testing using an fMRI and that one of their own doctors in the affadavits says fMRI is EXPERIMENTAL, which is what he mentioned in the other denial. I'll put it in the feeding tube section FuelWagon 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Miniflorida and Mia-Cle. I updated the "life support - feeding tube" section with the full context based on these two links and your explanations. lemme know what you think. FuelWagon 21:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Mia-Cle, I just re-read you comments above. I get what you mean by arguing the minutia. I guess the reason I wanted to put it in the article is so that it puts into context what conspiracy-theory websites are reporting as "Greer denies food and water by natural means." I guess I figure if it's in wikipedia, but put into proper context, then hopefully some of the people will get the truth, and the conspiracy nuts can't say "There must be some truth to it because they don't even mention it in Wikipedia". Including it makes the claim that "it's being hidden because there's some awful truth underneath" fail to hold water. Then again, if you try to rebuke every conspiracy theory around this, the one article could take an entire encyclopedia. But then, if I take it out, someone will have to go through this same investigation to either put it into full context, or argue to take it out because it's out of context. I don't know. I'm getting burned out to some degree here. FuelWagon 01:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * i understand completely and you have my sympathy-- my apologies for not responding in more detail at this point (i haven't had the time to read the entire article, actually), but i will later. (there is always hope that with time, and after all the books come out and the made for tv movies/docudramas air, then you and others will be able to edit this article with the kind of balance you are trying to achieve). kudos for all your hard work.  --Mia-Cle64.132.60.202 14:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Tropix, via my user talk page:

Here is my concern: The second motion does not contain any reference to experimental procedures. Maybe something was attached to the motion, I don't know, but the body of the motion is only about feeding by mouth, no tests. I suggest you might delete the statement "It contained the same requests for fMRI scans, the same request for VitalStim swallowing therapy, and the same affadavits." if that statement is wrong. I agree that the judge in his denial order refers to both motions as requesting experimental procedures, but this appears to be an error on his part. Perhaps the first one did, but not the second.

You may wish also wish to read the 2000 order, page 10, where Judge Greer orders the discontinuance of Micheal's artificial life support. I assume that even a judge can make minor errors from time to time.

Tropix 05:07, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I noted your change this morning, and thank you for removing that sentence. Since you added the judge's wording (in which he apparently spoke in error) it would neutralize the remaining inaccuracy to add a comment that the second motion did not, in fact, request experimental procedures. Otherwise, the reader is given the direct but wrong impression that it did, when we know it didn't. Tropix 15:13, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon"

Tropix, if you can find the original motions and show that one doesn't mention fMRI, then put it in. If you can show a court document from the Schindlers or something from their lawyer were they object to this comment, then link to that and put it in. But unless you have something that solid to show Greer made a provable mistake, and the Schindlers or someone else neutral didn't dispute it, then you can't just say Greer's decision is wrong, when the Shindlers never disputed it or something. if an appeal court or something looked at everything and said, "yeah, Greer should have treated these as two separate motions" then go for it. Otherwise, we're "in the minutia" as Mia-Cle said. If Greer MISPOKE but his decision to deny would still stand, what is the point, reallY? If an appeal court or something woudl say his decision was valid, then who are you trying to hang by bringing this up? If the Schindlers or their lawyer said something about Greer's wording or decision, then put that in as a direct dispute. But the opinion of some armchair lawyer on a third-party blog and a demonstrated bias should probably stay out. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I don't mind putting in any valid disputes, but I don't want this to be a way for some "Culture of Death" comment from some outside website to be snuck into the article. There is a fundamental difference. It really comes down to the source of who is disputing the decision. If the Schindlers didn't try to show Greer was wrong or had misread the motions, then why bring in some third party with a political agenda? do you get where I'm coming from? FuelWagon 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a lawyer to go over the life-prolonging-procedures/life support/feeding tube section. There are motions and motions and rulings and rulings and a lot of explanations and I'd like to see a lawyer comb through it and at least confirm that it isn't factually wrong. It may not be complete, but at least it isn't factually wrong. I'd also like to include the swallowing tests and when they occurred. They're mentioned in a report, but no dates are given as to when they occurred. FuelWagon 04:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The swallowing tests and therapy that she got were no later than 1992. Here's a link to an excerpt from Michael's November, 1992 testimony in the malpractice case.  He's apparently commenting on a video recording which is being played in court.  He describes how a speech pathologist seen on the video is coaxing Terri into swallowing, and says, "He comes in and massages her lips and uses different flavors to try to help her swallow... She just swallowed that time ." [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1120621/posts?page=304#323]

 * BTW, vegetative patients cannot perceive flavors. NCdave 11:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW, part of flavouring is reflex. You know, stuff like gag reflex. Like extremely bitter tastes (common in poisons) that cause you to gag whether you want to or not. Your brain might be gone, but guess what still works, other than my ability to call you and your misinformation out almost immediately? The rest of your nervous system! Professor Ninja 11:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I tried to clarify the section a bit more, this evening, and fix some typos. The motions do ask for two different things; the first for a period of time to test and do therapy; and the second a last plea to provide water and maybe food.  The motion acknowledges that it may not even be possible, but it argues that to try is not within the scope of the 2000 order and thus would not violate it.  All are linked to source documents.  So I think the motions are important, but I don't propose saying that Greer's order is wrong.  Tropix 06:24, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

 * I believe that when Greer states in his order that the energency motion is "part and parcel" of the experimental procedures motion, he is referring to numbers 17, 18, and 19 on page 5 of the motion, related to Terri ingesting food by natural means. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say this with complete certainty. I do find it curious that when an editor has a difficult time understanding the legalese, that editor proclaims that the judge was wrong or did not mean what he wrote.  Perhaps your understanding of the law is lacking and not the judge's.  I hate to verge on being argumentative, but I think it's wrongfully arrogant for one to assume s/he has a better understanding of the law than the judge in the case, unless that person is a legal expert.  No matter what you think of Greer personally, I think it's safe to say he knows more about Florida law than we do.--Minaflorida 12:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Additonally, the "experimental procedure" in the emergency motion to feed orally would be--presumably--feeding Terri orally. That, in and of itself, would have been an experimental procedure--one that her medical history indicates would likely have choked her to death.  I do not see anywhere in the denial order that Greer states that both motions ask for identical experimental procedures, just that they both ask for experimental procedures.  Please steer me in the right direction if I'm missing it.--Minaflorida 12:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon: I am a lawyer, licensed to practice (and do) in the State of Florida, etc., etc., etc., and I would be happy to look it over and remark;  however, my concern is not with the factuality of the nit-picky detail, it's that this nit-picky analysis of minute detail is occurring. I tried to read the article last night to see how the legal issues/cases were addressed and I had to stop in frustration. The elements of the court case have been so separated and broken down in order to make political/social points that it lacks any coherence and is confusing. What I would like to see happen is more organizational (and this is a quick, rough outline): the probate case needs to be addressed separately. Why was this in court (in Florida every person--competent and incompetent--has a right to refuse medical treatment, what the Fla. Stat. say on the subject, the role of the court when the person is incompetent), what the legal issues were before the court (was TS in PVS, what were TS end-of-life wishes)who the parties were, what were their respective arguments, evidence presented, and the judge's decision. Then the appellate process (what happened--what courts did what and why). The initial attempt to get into federal court (which was dimissed I believe). Then "Terri's Law" (what happened; its separate legal case with legal issues unrelated to the probate case--can the legislature/governor do this). Then back to probate court (post-trial motions). Then the feds (law; its unique legal issues and how it went through the federal court system). Then back to probate court (yet more post trial motions). This kind of framework will not exclude all the interesting social/political stuff. What needs to be made clear is that such-and-such a side points to and excises a particular element of the court case to make its social commentary.Mia-Cle 14:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mia-Cle, if you can do that, I salute you. I'm no lawyer, so it's WAY over my head. to Mia-Cle and Minaflorida, I think this bit about the "natural means" motion is making a mountain out of a molehill. I looked at the motions and Greer's denial and realized that Greer is calling feeding by natural means an "experimental procedure" (same conclusion as you, Minaflorida, I thought of it indiependently in the shower this morning, honest), a "different pleading" of the same thing. Basically, the first motion asks for VitalStim swallowing therapy, which had never been done on a PVS patient, the second motion doesn't call it "swallowing therapy" but says "can we try to feed her? Maybe we can get her to swallow", which is swallowing therapy with a different label. The only reason I want to keep it in is because it's obviously become a hot button issue for people who want to hang Greer. "My God, he won't let them feed her by natural means? He's a monster!" I would like to put in when swallowing tests were performed. A report mentions the tests and says she failed them, but no dates were given. Anyway, I tried to tweak teh article a little bit to explain the motions and denials for those who wish to hang the judge. FuelWagon 14:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a little e-mail to Matt Conigliaro at abstractappeal, asking him a couple of questions about these two motions. He's been really helpful for me in the past, so I hope to get a response in the next few days. I invited him to come edit the page, if he's interested. I don't know what the odds are on that--dude is one busy mofo--but it's a try. (:--Minaflorida 17:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

It is universally agreed that the discontinuance of hydration and feeding caused Terri to die. At the time of these two motions (First, request for time for experimental procedures, and second, request to feed by natural means ) there was an order in place to remove her feeding tube. The denial of these orders extended that to prohibiting feeding by "natural means". It is possible that the judge considered it experimental, but, whatever his reasoning, it was prohibited and enforced. The issue of feeding by natural means became a significant part of the final controversy. Over 50 demonstrators were arrested at the hospice trying to bring her water, presumably for attempted feeding by mouth. No demonstrators were attempted to bring her a feeding tube. Feeding by natural means is not life support under Florida law, so the controversy and discussion have a rational basis. So these motions should be referenced and described. There should not be any paraphrasing slanting a point of view, as the documents are direct and speak for themselves. While they are legal documents, and subject to all the formalities of the legal process, they are still comprehensible and clear. Legal analysis is fine, but will not be a service to obscure these motions in formalities. They will be important for readers wishing to reference and study this issue. Tropix 17:37, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

 * Tropix...Protestors were arrested for trespassing, not for attempting to defy a court order by feeding Terri orally. I agree that the legal documents are comprehensive and clear.  I agree with you that these are important aspects of the controversy and that they should be referenced in the article.--Minaflorida 17:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, that they were arrested for trespassing. When I said they were arrested trying to bring her water, I didn't mean to imply that was the reason for arrest. It was the nature of the protest I meant to describe. Tropix 20:56, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry. I misread you.--Minaflorida 21:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 21


text:
Robert Bartlett (explorer)

Robert Abram Bartlett (August 15, 1875 – April 28, 1946) was a Newfoundland-born American Arctic explorer of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Early life
Born in Brigus, Colony of Newfoundland, Bartlett was the oldest of ten children born to William James Bartlett and Mary J. Leamon, and heir to a family tradition of seafaring. He grew up in Hawthorne Cottage in Brigus. By the age of 17, he mastered his first ship and began a lifelong love affair with the Arctic.

Career
Bartlett spent more than 50 years mapping and exploring the waters of the Far North and led over 40 expeditions to the Arctic, more than anyone before or since.

Bartlett was captain of the SS Roosevelt (1905) and accompanied United States Navy Commander Robert Peary on his attempts to reach the North Pole. He was awarded the Hubbard Medal of the National Geographic Society for breaking the trail through the frozen Arctic Sea to within 150 miles of the pole, yet was excluded from the final exploring party (possibly due to a rivalry between the two men). Bartlett took a ship and was the first person to sail north of 88° N.

In 1914, Bartlett's leadership in the doomed Karluk Expedition helped save the lives of most of its stranded participants after leader Vilhjalmur Stefansson abandoned the expedition. After being stranded for several months, Bartlett and Inuit hunter Kataktovik walked 700 miles from Wrangel Island over the ice of the Chukchi Sea and across Siberia and then mounted an expedition from Alaska to rescue his surviving companions on Wrangel Island. He received the highest award from the Royal Geographical Society for his outstanding heroism. However, despite his popularity among the press, the public, and those he had rescued, he was later censured by an admiralty commission for taking Karluk into the Arctic, and for allowing a party of four (the expedition's medical officer Alistair Forbes Mackay, biologist James Murray, anthropologist Henri Beuchat, and seaman Stanley Morris) to leave the main group—despite a letter that Mackay and the others had signed, absolving the captain from responsibility (all four subsequently died).

In 1917, Bartlett rescued the members of Donald Baxter MacMillan's ill-fated Crocker Land Expedition, who had been stuck on the ice for four years.

From 1925 to 1945, at the command of his own schooner, Effie M. Morrissey, Bartlett led many important scientific expeditions to the Arctic sponsored by American museums, the Explorers Club and the National Geographic Society. He also helped to survey the Arctic for the United States Government during World War II.

In 1931, Bartlett starred as Captain Barker in the film The Viking about a sealing ship in Newfoundland. The film was shot on location and during the filming of several action scenes, the ship on which filming was taking place exploded, killing 28 men. Despite this, the film was still released. In it, Bartlett plays the captain of the sealing vessel The Viking who is proud of his reputation for never having lost a man.

Death
Bartlett died when he was 70 in a New York City hospital from pneumonia and was buried in his hometown of Brigus, Newfoundland and Labrador. Hawthorne Cottage, Bartlett's place of residence in Brigus, is a National Historic Site of Canada.

Awards and honors
In 1909, Bartlett was awarded the Hubbard Medal by the National Geographic Society which is awarded for distinction in exploration, discovery, and research. In 1927, the Boy Scouts of America made Bartlett an Honorary Scout, a new category of Scout created that same year. This distinction was given to "American citizens whose achievements in outdoor activity, exploration and worthwhile adventure are of such an exceptional character as to capture the imagination of boys...". Among others who were awarded this distinction were included Richard E. Byrd, Charles Lindbergh, and Orville Wright.

He was awarded an Honorary Fellowship from the American Geographical Society in 1918, and its Daly Medal in 1925. In 1944, he was awarded the Peary Polar Expedition Medal. The Canadian Coast Guard vessel CCGS Bartlett is named for Bartlett. Canada Post featured Bartlett on a Canadian postage stamp released on July 10, 2009.

In fiction
Robert “Bob” Bartlett is a major character in the novel The Big Why by author Michael Winter (published 2004). Author Eric Walters documented some of the aspects of his journey to find Arctic islands in the historical novels Trapped in Ice and The Pole. Bartlett and Kataktovik's journey through Chukotka, Siberia is recounted as an episode in Chukchi author Yuri Rytkheu's novel A Dream in Polar Fog.

title: Robert Bartlett (explorer)


text:
Template talk:Now Commons

Imported using FileImporter
I suggest include Imported using FileImporter, in the template Now Commons. BoldLuis (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Now Commons


text:
User talk:Ogleby

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski 15:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Ogleby


text: User talk:134.226.238.17

title: User talk:134.226.238.17


text:
User:Patrickr

Hello! My name is Patrick.

I was once a philosophy graduate student. My interests stretch from ancient philosophy (especially Aristotle) to analytic philosophy of language. I was once a math student, but found maths not abstract enough. (Or maybe just too hard.)

I'm now studying Canadian Common Law.

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Patrickr&action=edit&section=new Please click here to leave me a new message. ]'''

title: User:Patrickr


text:
User:Csaw

Hello world! Good to see you again.

title: User:Csaw