text:
Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 17

Usage of fact,alleged,disputed,claimed
A finding of the court is not a fact. This case is unusual in the amount of testimony and evidence which was not presented to the court, or presented but failed to meet the standard of clear and convincing. A lot of findings of the district court were disputed and so much so that a federal law was passed enabling federal jurisdiction for the purpose of reversing the court-ordered withdrawal of nutrition and hydration to allow Terri to live pending a de novo review. I hope that where it's been reported that a finding of the court or guardian ad litem was disputed by the Schindlers in their pleadings and public statements it may recorded in the article as disputed.

The court record of any case is not the only information useful to the Wikipedia reader and gratutitous removal of these real disputes with the findings of the district court made by the Schindlers renders the article inaccurate. A good article would present in summary form the significant disputes which influenced much of the public to support the legislation advocated by the Schindlers and cast doubt on the fairness of the findings of Judge George Greer.

Alleged is another term. It refers to an accusation that is pending some legal determination. There are a few places in the article and in the talk page where doubt is expressed by the author: claimed rather than alleged is a better word.

Rather than go through perpetual cycles of add/remove, it would be better to come to a consensus how the specific claims of the Schindlers can appear in the article and be labeled as being in opposition to the findings of the trial court, or ultimately not addressed in any court because of procedural rules preventing their review. patsw 12:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're entirely right, Patsw, and I thank you for your contribution. But in the future please sign and date your contributions.
 * The easy way to do that is to add four tildes (" ~ ") to the end of your message. The ~ will be automatically translated into an ID and date/time, like this:
 * NCdave 07:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nothing like a good pathological lie, eh Dave? By being "entirely right", he must surely be right in saying that "Alleged" is another term... refer[ing] to an accusation that is pending some legal determination. It means nothing of the sort, it means a statement offered without proof. This is just another tedious example in your bizarre quest against the truth. You know there's plenty of Bible verses against that, right? Professor Ninja 08:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * NCdave, my rundown of Iyer's affadavit has been archived here . -FuelWagon
 * Minus my comment at the end of it, of course. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can explain the holes in her logic, feel free to do it there. I was actually in the process of whittling it down so I could put it in the timeline before it got archived, but no worries. FuelWagon 12:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I already did, but y'all deleted that. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't bother, FuelWagon. Honestly, I think the entire editorial spectrum that's come into contact with NCdave deserves a wifflebat barnstar by now. He'll dance around it and... yech. It's not even worth trying, I've become so agitated I've (very wrongly, I admit) turned to the simple sport of just baiting him and then corrected his wholly invented allegations.

 * Something can be both alleged and claimed. Either word fits before the dismissal of charges or verdict of not guilty: "The police claimed Smith was the burglar" or "The police alleged Smith was the burglar."  After a guilty plea or verdict of guilty it is not correct to say "The police alleged Smith was the burglar" because the allegation was proven and being a criminal case, proven beyond reasonable doubt, "Smith was the burglar" is the correct usage by every style manual I've ever seen.  Smith, of course, can claim in an appeal to the court or to the public that he's not the burglar, but he's wrong to insist upon the label of alleged.  To consider the dismissal or verdict of not guilty --  A witness can no longer allege that Smith is the burglar but can still claim it to be so, disputing the finding of the court.  In an article like the one we are discussing, the distinction is important -- between what's in the public record which  was part of the legal process (i.e. the allegations) and what was never subjected to legal review.

 * My main point which I don't want to be obscured is that we arrive at a consenus on how to represent in the wiki the claims, doubts, and contradictions made in court filings and the public record by the Schindler's, witnesses, friends of the court, etc. so that they are not gratuitously deleted merely because they are not the findings of the district court.  patsw 13:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody was being charged in a criminal proceeding; only civil cases were involved; beyond which the civil case is often extraneous to the allegations (ie: they have nothing to do with legality, they are just allegations) -- therefore the word alleged is fine to use. The reason why much of this stuff gets deleted is not because it's an allegation, or it's not the findings of the court, it's because it's patent nonsense put in in a vandalism format. Professor Ninja 13:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * What stuff which is a allegation of error, doubt, or contradiction of the district court findings, guardian ad litem reports, etc. made by the Schindler's, witnesses, and friends of the court which is part of the public record can be entered in the wiki without you deleting it as vandalism? I'd like to have a consensus on that from people who are actively deleting stuff. I'm opposed to vandalism as well.  patsw 14:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Why not check the history of the page and see what gets reverted as vandalism -- it's put in inappropriate places; it's offered up as proof positive; it doesn't document its refutations or counterclaims; it is used to rephrase or rebut other criticisms by couching itself entirely inside them. That's what the vandals have engaged in, that's what's been reverted. Professor Ninja 14:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * The purpose of having a consensus is so that we know what the editors believe to be vandalism and what is a contribution to the page based on the public record. Jredmond's revert of 14:26 7 April 2005 deleted a sentence and a link to the sworn statement of Dr. Cheshire.  Whether you agree or disagree with it, it forms a relevant part of the public record of the case because that statement was publicized and discussed during the public debate in March.  So I would argue it's vandalism to delete it.

 * So rather than adding/deleting in a loop, let's work on a consensus how allegations of error, doubt, or contradiction of the district court findings, guardian ad litem reports, etc. made by the Schindler's, witnesses, and friends of the court which is part of the public record which were discussed on talk radio, television and blogs in March and earlier enter into wiki without being deleted. patsw 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * How was entering the results of the Zogby poll vandalism, but the results of the CBS News poll not vandalism? patsw 15:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I fully reverted the vandal's edits, as did Jredmond. If the information in it is good it should not be added as vandalism or by a vandal. If they include useful information after repeatedly vandalising the page with garbage, it gets reverted. If somebody else wants to add it legitimately, that's fine. Professor Ninja 15:06, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't revert the Zogby poll, though, because while the language could have been NPOV-ified further (IMHO), the poll itself was still relevant and substantiated. The only thing I reverted was the "she wasn't really in a PVS" bit because it was combative and there was no substantiation (and because the anon user deliberately removed my HTML comment insisting on a link). - jredmond 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Addendum: After examining the IP vandal's edits, I also found that the Zogby poll is heavily, well, unscientific. It 1) Leads readers with deliberately misleading statements 2) polls based on information extraneous to the case, 2) You may notice from their homepage that they share a common (ad) market with sites like NewsMax and (the most damning of all) 3) reweighs the numbers (their exact terminology is "[s]light weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population.") without disclosing what the weight formulation is. So we have a clearly biased polling site conducting a poll on behalf of an interest group purposely asking misleading questions that don't support the conclusion of the argument (ie: does not support the conclusions here: ). None but two of the questions are pertinent or direct; they're specifically used to soften up the target audience and create an association between Terri Schiavo and minorities/disabled rights/etc and Michael Schiavo and a bastard. The two pertinent questions are: "Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?" -- which demonstrates according to their own numbers that 54% of people disagree with this. The other is "Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?" to which 57% disagree. It's been documented that the affidavits of many of the Schindlers' supporters are hearsay (ie: "when's the bitch gonna die?", for one), but they paint the results that they want in a way they want (that is, to imply that because unfounded contrary allegations of a non-PVS state have been presented, the sound medical evidence is thereby "hearsay"). On the other hand, CBS news wasn't solicited by any interest group to conduct their results, and they did not "reweigh" the results to give them a particular skew (this completely bastardizes the highly accurate population curve of random sampling.) Hope that helps. Professor Ninja 15:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

If someone feels that the Zogby poll is unscientific, then I say the criticisms of the poll should be included in the article.

I do not read where a consensus was reached to remove the poll. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I recognize that earlier mentions of the poll probably contained POV language. (At I personally changed someone's statement that the Zogby poll had "fairer" questions.)  I'm going to put it back in; pending discussion here can challenge the wording and/or the inclusion.

At Wikipedia, we don't decide what is truth. We report that people said something was truth. Jdavidb 17:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't understand what the relevance is if Professor Ninja finds the Zogby poll unscientific. The poll is a significant part of the public record on Terri Schiavo and her impact upon public policy as it stands. There could be a equally lengthy analysis of the methodology of the CBS News poll and the wording of its questions.  If I found that poll to be unscientific would I be justified in deleting it from the article using the same rationale as Professor Ninja?  There are plenty of discussion boards and blogs to argue for or against their accuracy. Both polls are a significant part of the public record and ought to be in the article.  Which takes me back to asking for a consensus regarding what gets deleted.  The history of deletions in the article has many deletions which seem arbitrary to me in addition to the ones which are obvious vandalism. patsw 16:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Part of the poll I read had a question that basically took Terri's situation, removed the fact that she's PVS, and said "would you stop life support". Not surprisingly, most people said "no". But it's completely friggen irrelevant to Terri. Look up Strawman Attack. One side presents a weakened view of the opposing side, so that it is easier to knock down. That kind of crap does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia article about Terri, maybe an article about life support and right to die, but NOT Terri, since THAT WASN"T HER SITUATION. FuelWagon 17:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't find it unscientific, it is unscientific. Random sampling is scientific (barely), reweighing random sampling is unscientific, and reweighing the samples without disclosing the weight formula is grossly so. Professor Ninja 16:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * And playing the "twist the logic" game, how about this? If I state in the public record (say, I go sign an affidavit and have the justice of the peace notarize it) that martians hired an unknown wikipedia user that goes by the soubriquet patsw to murder Terri Schiavo and fake her cremation but really eat her body to gain her power, that would be a matter of public record involving terri schiavo. Would it belong in the article? If you say no, state why. It is a matter of public record, after all. Sure it's grossly unscientific, misleading, purposefully deceptive, but it's a matter of public record. If you say sure it belongs, it's a matter of public record, I'll drive down to the courthouse today and do just that. Professor Ninja 16:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ninja, w/r/t Zogby being a "a clearly biased polling site," you must not know that John Zogby is a Democrat, who, on the eve of the 1994 election, predicted a Kerry landslide in the electoral college.

 * Also, Ninja, you seem to have missed the significance of the question about whether hearsay should be allowed as evidence when determining whether a feeding tube should be removed. The only evidence that Terri had ever expressed a preference to die rather than live in a disabled state was hearsay.  Specifically, Michael's sudden "memory" of Terri's remark, 7-1/2 or 8 years after she supposedly made it, was hearsay.

 * When he remembered it, he had a $3/4 million incentive to want Terri's death, so his testimony about her remark was not just hearsay, it was hearsay colored by a conflict of interest. I wonder what answers Zogby would have gotten if he'd asked about that?

 * Plus, Michael's hearsay testimony was inconsistent with his own previous testimony in the 1992 malpractice trial (not hearsay).

 * Plus, Michael's hearsay testimony (colored by conflict of interest) was in conflict with the hearsay testimony of four other people, none of whom had any conflict of interest. NCdave 16:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That horse is so dead, maggots are flying every time you hit it. FuelWagon 17:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Wait, I just saw that. By "four other poeple", do you mean "Iyer"????? WOOT! Her affadavit is already spelled out in the timeline. Greer was right its garbage. Your funny, man. FuelWagon 17:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The four other people are Trudi Capone, Cindy Shook (Brasher), Diane Meyer and Jackie Rhodes. (Plus, of course, Michael, himself, in his 1992 civil trial testimony and on Larry King Live.)
 * BTW, does anyone know whether Jackie Rhodes and Jackie Adams are the same person? In 1992, Michael Schiavo testified that Terri's best friend was a co-worker named "Jackie Adams."  I think that Jackie Rhodes was (in 1990) married and was named "Jackie Adams," but I can't seem to find confirmation of that.  Can anyone say for certain whether Jackie Rhodes is Terri's best friend, the former Jackie Adams? NCdave 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So he's a democrat, so what? It's a clearly biased polling site. I know in your fantasy world of pathological lies, you believe that political affiliation determines honesty; thankfully the rest of teh world doesn't behave that way. You can see it's NewsMax-esque "rag" bias by the fact that they share advertisers, advertisers appeal to core demographics -- therefore they share a core demographic.
 * And? The significance is about hearsay; they're attempting to characterize the conclusion of it towards a specific bias, that is, that Michael Schiavo is wrong. Furthermore, you also attempt to characterize Michael Schiavo here -- he only proceeded to attempt to remove life support after it was recommended by Terri's physician. He may very well have only needed to state that she wouldn't want to live in a hopeless state when her own physician assured him that the state was indeed hopeless. This is, again, absolute fact. Your need to lie is just bizarre. Professor Ninja 16:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Remember, Michael Schiavo & George Felos chose Terri's doctors. Dr. Cranford, for example, was chosen because he always recommends that patients be starved/dehydrated to death.

 * Terri's family had several physicians who believed they could help her, but Michael Schiavo and George Felos wouldn't let them try. Terri had no therapy at all, of any kind, for over 12 years, by Michael Schiavo's orders.  Even GAL Wolfson recommended swallowing therapy and swallowing tests for her, but M.Schiavo/Felos/Greer would not permit it.

 * Wolfson was predisposed to favor M.Schiavo's viewpoint, because shortly before being appointed GAL he told the local press that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be removed. Judge Demers appointed Wolfson Oct. 31, 2003 despite objections filed in court on Oct. 25 and Oct. 29 by Terri's parents.
 * Wolfson's report, issued a month later, erred in favor of the M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint in several ways:
 * Wolfson accepted the PVS diagnosis, despite the disagreement of many physicians, and despite the fact that Terri was getting analgesics to relieve menstural pain every month, and the fact that PVS patients cannot experience pain.
 * Wolfson reported that Terri got physical therapy until 1994, even though there are no medical records of any therapy of any kind after 1992. (Wolfson's conclusion was presumably on the basis of M.Schiavo's representations.)
 * Wolfson reported that Terri had never had a bedsore, even though Michael's own 1992 testimony in the medical malpractice case indicated that Terri had had a toe amputated because of bedsores.
 * Wolfson accepted M.Schiavo's belated recollection of Terri's supposed wishes, even though GAL Pearse had found M.Schiavo's recollection not credible.
 * Yet, in spite of his predisposition to favor M.Schiavo/Felos viewpoint, Wolfson nevertheless recommended swallowing therapy for Terri. However, Felos/M.Schiavo would not permit it, and Greer dismissed the family's petition asking that it be done. NCdave 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sen. Martinez confirms his office produced the talking points memo
Yeah, pretty self-explanatory (cite). So, if anybody's wondering about the update, that's that. I'll be updating the article as necessary, I don't feel like getting into this imbroglio again over it. Sorry, that comment was mine. Professor Ninja 11:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redacted; apparently some problems with Firefox are keeping my article from updating properly. Somebody already beat me to it. I was wondering why it wasn't in there. Professor Ninja 11:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * The article states that the memo was circulated among Republican senators. According to the Washington Times this has been denied in a interview with each Republican senators.  Martinez says that he gave it to Harkin whom he believed to be an ally in the debate, and that Martinez did not distribute it to Republican senators.  Is this explanation being disputed? patsw 21:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The Washington Times article reported that [a]ll 55 Republican senators say they have never seen the Terri Schiavo political talking-points memo . Either Martinez lied, or the WT didn't ask all 55 senators.  So the veracity of that statement is disputable.  Guettarda 22:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * As written now the article states there's a dispute regarding Darling's authorship. Darling admitted writing it.  Who is claiming that Darling is not the author at this point?  patsw 00:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Where does the article state a dispute regarding authorship? In your immortal(ly annoying) words, define "dispute". In a couple of sources  I don't see anything about Darling admitting to writing it. I see Martinez stating that somebody wrote it and was subsequently dismissed, which is exactly what the article reflects. Professor Ninja 00:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The first sentence of the article already linked in the wiki starts "The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo".  There is no dispute that Darling is the author and I will edit accordingly.

 * My bad, I hadn't seen that MSNBC link. I was under the impression it was one of those shifty scapegoating affairs that may be true, may not (hell, it still may be true, it may be true that NCdave's right and Michael Schiavo was out to murder Terri, but Darling's admission stands as it is.) Regardless, the fact that Mel Martinez says he did not see the memo is still questionable, and should not be stated as fact. However it should be noted Harkin believed him to be acting in good faith. Professor Ninja 04:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

replacing non-normal text
65.248.224.93 just replaced a large number of plain text with formatted text - " with & #8220; (not sure what the equivalent code for "nowiki" would be), for example. I am inclined to revert these changes because the hurt the readability/editability of the article.  As I understand, the point of wiki syntax (rather than HTML, for example) is that it produces more naturally readable code.  Am I correct in my interpretation?  Guettarda 16:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The &8220/8221 is HTML for curly quotes, which, according to the Manual of Style, should not be used: "Use straight quotation marks and apostrophes. For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( ' " ) not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` )." Therefore, I agree that they should all be reverted.  Flyers13 01:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Ronald Cranford
I don't know how to add or augment any Wikipedia articles, but I did want to contribute the following articles written by Dr. Ronald Cranford. It is only fair that if we impugn Dr. Hammesfahr for his shenanigans, then the other medical experts in the case are open to scrutiny as well.

Commentary: When a feeding tube borders on the barbaric

Cranford advocates expanding feeding tube withdrawal criteria to Alzheimer's patients.

The More You Suffer, The Longer You Live

Cranford argues that even if a patient is minimally conscious, he/she should be denied nutrition and hydration if the family so wishes it (the Wendland case is mentioned in passing), and that economic factors should play a more significant role in whether or not to continue medical treatment.

Also, Dr. Cranford's biography page at the University of Minnesota's website lists him being on the Board of Directors for the Choice in Dying organization  since 1992. Choice in Dying became Partnership for Caring: America's Voices for the Dying in 2000.

Finally, if anyone can find a case where Dr. Cranford has, in the last 20 years, advocated that a particular patient should be kept alive, I would like the evidence for my compilation on the Terri Schiavo case. Thank you, and I apologize for any imposition on my part.

 * Not really imposition at all; very helpful. I think it's perfectly acceptable to characterize the opinions of the doctors in this case (doctors are open to a fair appeal to authority, so characterizing it in the context of "well, what else did you expect them to say, this is their consistent position" (though less POV) is totally acceptable and welcome). However, we must be careful what we select as criticism for either side. The main question is, "is it relevant?" If Mr. Cranford advocates in particular cases, those may not be relevant to the current case (if they're thoroughly dissimilar). However, the Alzheimer's case, for example, or at least your summary of it, seems a good example.
 * Basically, just toss it up to a basic logic test. If it's logical and pertinent, go for it, if it's non sequitur or irrelevant, refrain. And make sure you put it where it belongs, if you do put it in. Otherwise, be bold. Professor Ninja 18:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * The timeline says Cranford is a proponent of Euthenasia. I put it in there. I don't have a problem saying the same in the main article. However, saying "you pick on Hammesfahr, you should pick on everyone" doesn't quite fly because, the court never ruled Cranford's "therapies" to be non-standard/questionable/whatever, the courts DID rule that with Hammesfahr. I've been trying to clean up the medical opinions section. I'll put it in there in one of the next passes. (may not have time right now) FuelWagon 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * True, but I think that it does note that some of the Schindler's doctors are distinctly right-to-lifers. Hammesfahr's out there, but the reasoning of Cranford's inclusion (if a bit off the mark) is sound. Professor Ninja 22:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * If it is to be mentioned that Dr. Cheshire spent only 90 minutes with Terri, to reach his conclusion of MCS (not PVS), then it should also be mentioned that Dr. Cranford spent only 45 minutes to reach his conclusion of PVS. NCdave 09:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zogby poll
The Zogby poll has been in and out, with and without POV commentary. But a consensus has not been reached in this discussion page as to whether it should be here.

Some have asserted that the poll is unscientific, but it is still being widely reported in the media. This article should report the fact that the anti-euthanasia side is using this poll to advance their cause, as well as the objections that have been offered about the poll.

The poll did happen, and it's in the news. The reasons that people are giving on this talk page for removing the poll are instead things that should be added into the article about the poll. It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether or not the poll was scientific or unscientific. Report the facts. Jdavidb 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, James, this is an encyclopedia and not everything belongs here. You might have more fun on wikinews if you're trying to be a reporter.  (note: I have not yet looked at the Zogby poll, my comment is directed at your last paragraph only) →Vik Reykja 18:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is James?

I'll agree not everything belongs here. The question is whether the fact that the poll occurred is encyclopedic. I'd say that question is already answered by the inclusion of the previous polls. Jdavidb 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Your recent additions are not exactly neutral - "estranged" husband? That has been debated and resolved several times on the talk page - the consenus is that that is POV.  In addition, you shouldn't just say "asked different questions" without at least explaining how the questions were different.  Guettarda 19:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone who thinks that it is POV rather than simple fact that M.Schiavo was estranged from Terri needs to consult a dictionary (click on the word "estranged"). We've been over this ground before, and it has been well and truly proven that Michael was about as completely estranged from his wife as it is possible for a man to be.  He has been living in open adultery with other women, on and off, for over 13 years!  He has been living with his current girlfriend for nearly 10 years.  He has two children with her.  He has been referring to her as his "fiancee" since 1997. That's inarguably estranged. NCdave 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The definition at your link says; "separated from a spouse: no longer living with a husband or wife." So by the construction of that definition that by virtue of Terri having been living in either a nursing home or hospice for the previous thirteen or so years the weren't living together you might be correct...in that limited construction. However, in another dictionary one of the two definitions has quite a pejorative sense; 2 : to arouse especially mutual enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness with synonyms of alienated and disaffected.

 * Now, if I'd never read another post of yours I might be inclined to think that you had inadvertantly meant the separated from version and just misused the word althogether. However, you have earned no such consideration and it is abundantly clear that you are trying to connote alienated and disaffected in your use of estranged where there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest either. I don't know whether he was there every day, and I challenge you to prove he wasn't, but the time that I'm aware he did spend there sure indicates they weren't estranged in the commonly held meaning of the word. It's just another example of your continued efforts to smear Michael Schiavo because you don't like what happened. LRod 216.76.216.103 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The adjective "estranged" can be applied to various words, but when applied to the word "husband" or "wife," it does not mean that the husband and wife are in active opposition to one another. It is a simple descriptive term implying separation, which can be due to either alienation or indifference. Anyone who has moved away from his wife, and moved in with another woman, with whom he is having children, is, by definition, and beyond argument, "estranged" from his wife.
 * dictionary.cambridge.org says:
 * estranged. adjective. 1 describes a husband or wife who is not now living with the person they are married to: his estranged wife
 * "Estranged" is the correct word to use for a man who has lived with another woman for a decade (not his first post-Terri girlfriend, btw), and has two children by her. We could add adulterous, but that, while accurate, seems unnecessarily judgmental.  The purpose is descriptive: it is important to qualify "husband" so that readers don't wrongly picture the normal sort of husband (who lives with his wife), which Michael Schiavo certainly is not.

 * By the definitions you choose to employ, my parents were estranged when my father was off flying 35 combat missions over Germany and my mother was serving in a photo processing company during WWII. Ha, ha, ha. Almost any English speaking person hearing the adjective estranged will connote a couple who are not getting along and may be on the road to divorce. It is prejudicial and is not the correct word. The only reason that it might remotely fit is that since Terri was in a 100% health care facility, Michael couldn't live with her. But that's not the impression you're trying to create. You're after the pejorative slant. Ninja is right; we should describe the Schindlers as 'estranged' from her as well, by your definition. LRod 216.76.216.57 15:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed 100%. Similarly, I'm going to do a copy-edit on the article to make sure that readers aren't confused that Terri wasn't estranged from her parents, as she didn't live with them, nor they with her, either. Which is better NCdave, "Terri Schiavo, the Schindler's estranged daughter" or "The Schindlers, Terri Schiavo's estranged parents"? You being the expert on language and all. Professor Ninja 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not to mention the fact that "estranged" has no legal definition while "husband" does. Professor Ninja 23:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants a real dictionary definition, try here ([t]hese verbs refer to disruption of a bond of love, friendship, or loyalty. Estrange and alienate are often used with reference to two persons whose harmonious relationship has been replaced by hostility or indifference...) Wonder why NCdave took the more circuitous definition, huh? By wonder, I mean understand it to be the same reason he attempted to forge Hammesfahr's credentials for him, why he bemoans "hearsay" yet freely repeats that Michael did in fact say "when's that bitch gonna die" -- etc., etc. Because he's a pathological liar that thinks rapind and murdering the truth in the name of his perverted version of Jesus is acceptable. Professor Ninja 23:36, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, there is considerable evidence that Michael was physically abusing Terri prior to her collapse: a bone scan showing that she had suffered numerous traumatic injuries, which she concealed from her friends and family (a classic pattern in domestic abuse cases), the testimony of her friend and co-worker, Jackie Rhodes (was she named Jackie Adams at the time?) that Terri often had bruises on her upper arms and thighs), and the testimony of both of Terri's siblings to Michael's history of violent explosions of temper directed at them.   .  Plus, there is overwhelming evidence that Michael abused Terri even in the first few years after her injury. .  Moreover, in the weeks prior to Terri's injury, according to three different witnesses (her mother, brother, and co-worker Jackie), Terri had said that she was considering or intending to divorce Michael..

 * Not signing your work now, Dave? No matter, it's easily identifiable by all the zimp.org cites. Considerable evidence? You mean the bone scan? The one that shows some bone damage that so far raises questions but is open to a number of interpretations, most of which are results of the fall or the subsequent attempts at rescuscitation? The ones that no law enforcement agency has used as evidence of any action upon which they could arrest or prosecute?

 * Overwhelming evidence? So overwhelming that not a single record exists of a complaint with any law enforcement agency or with an abuse support agency? Just affidavits of convenience from questionable or discredited johnny-come-latelies who somehow couldn't bring themeselves to come to her aid when it would have been appropriate, but miraculously appeared at the last minute.

 * James Carville was right. You drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you can come up with. Yes, I'm saying that's the sum of the worth of those affidavits. LRod 216.76.216.57 15:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. Of course, you know. Michael Schiavo's motives for taking Terri off the feeding tube (money that doesn't exist) are a conflict of interest and obviously something he'd lie about, but admitting they'd lie to save their daughter, admitting if they knew Terri's wish was to die they'd lie about it anyway, admitting they'd do anything to keep her alive? Nope, no conflict of interest there. Professor Ninja 10:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm using previous wording. I did not realize that that term had been deemed POV. Still, the fact that some incarnations of this fact have had POV text is not a reason to eliminate it entirely.

I'm about to go look at the article again and see if the poll has been removed yet again, without a consensus here on the talk page. Jdavidb 21:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If the reason for deleting the Zogby poll is a personal opinion or published reports of its inaccurarcy, the same criteria could be applied to the CBS News poll. So what's the consensus regarding the inclusion of a poll?  I offer that both polls were widely reported and are being used to influence popular opinion and public policy and therefore are significant and relevant to the Terri Schiavo story. patsw 19:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the paragraph has been cleaned up to eliminate "estranged" and other POV wording. (Thanks, Macdougal.) It's been left alone for the past few edits, but no way to tell whether that is through agreement or oversight. :) Does everyone (or anyone) agree with the present wording?  It specifically points out that the poll did not specify the disability.  I think those who have opposed the inclusion of the paragraph probably still have more to add.  I think those objections to the poll should be included with the paragraph. Jdavidb 21:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Zogby is a Democrat, who, on the eve of the 1994 election, predicted a Kerry landslide in the electoral college. The only reason to suppose that Zogby's polls are biased in favor of the Schindlers is that they don't show the results that some people want. NCdave 21:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This has already been done to death. I'll explain my reasons again. First of all, NCdave's idiotic assertion that Zogby's a Democrat, therefore, he supports Michael Schiavo's POV is as easily refuted as his expounding on the Hammesfahr credentials, the Iyer affidavit, etc.: Jesse Jackson, Democrat, supported Terri Schiavo. Similarly, there's been Republican opposition to the Schiavo bills. The reasonable conclusion is that therefore, in any place that isn't the confused and angry jumble of NCdave's mind, these biases are independent of primary political party affiliation.
 * Furthermore, the poll is an absolute lie. For example, at the poll proper, read over certain sections. Stuff like this: "By a two-to-one (44% to 24%) margin, with one-in-three (32%) undecided, the survey finds that an incapacitated person should be presumed to want to live in the absence of written instructions such as a “living will.”". Not so, at all. I don't know why he'd even put this in there, out of the eight questions asked, not one was that question or a question related to it. It is also a strawman argument couched in a poll. It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied? conjures memories of Martin Luther King Jr. or troopers intervening on behalf of black students. Nobody thinks of Terri Schiavo because, alas, the removal of life support is a common practice that does not violate a person's basic civil rights; it's bioethically justified in courts and legislatures repeatedly, and practiced daily. The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities? again, same as above. Being in a PVS doesn't make you a minority. Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her? False dichotomy -- either Michael Schiavo can have no girlfriend and remain guardian, OR he can have a girlfriend but not be guardian. The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse? Conclusion isn't supported by the premise, again. This is misleading. The law does, in fact, provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian. Schiavo met none of those criteria. Therefore he remained so. It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order? again, sweeping strawman generalization here. "It is proper for the federal governmnt to intervene when disabled people are denied oxygen by a state court judge's order?", for example, adequately describes the "disabled" (ie: comatose or worse) people who have respirators removed from them, but most people recognize it as the joke question that it is. "The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?" Again, same thing. Last two questions of the poll are at least semi-pertinent.
 * In another portion of the site we have this: ""If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked." A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes." & "The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree." Actually, those numbers or questions don't appear in the poll. At all, anywhere. Why outright fabrications are reprinted on Zogby's own site are... well, I don't know, he likes attention?
 * MOST DAMNING OF ALL, HOWEVER, IS THIS: Zogby International conducted interviews of 1019 likely voters nationwide on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., March 30 through April 2, 2005.  The margin of error is +/-3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Yeah, so, there we have it. Rather than the random sampling of 1019, they have readjusted the numbers (what is slight? what is the formula for reweight? what is the higher margin of error that doesn't get stated?) This makes the sampling totally nonscientific. Polls from news sites are more scientific polls (they're convenience sampling, it doesn't give the total demographic breakdown random sampling provides, but in this case convenience sampling is more accurate than this.) Random sampling provides a (very) good, but imperfect breakdown of standard population distribution (the margin of error reflects this). This has been proven time and again. So now based on things like age, race, religion, gender, region and political party, the numbers have been adjusted. "18? Black? Atheist? Democrat? Male? Okay, we'll just 'adjust' your opinion, sir, to more adequately reflect..." Right. I don't think so.
 * So no, the reason people dislike the Zogby poll is because they dislike pathological lies, deliberate commissioned deception, discrimination of opinion based on race, party, gender, age and unscientific polls. Hope that helps clarify. Professor Ninja 23:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Zogby poll's questions are ridiculously biased but I'm not sure about your other criticisms.
 * Weights are very common: if the random people they call do not match up to the national average in age, race, etc. then the underpolled groups are given a greater weight. Zogby uses more than most other pollsters but I don't see how this invalidates their polls. Pollsters do not disclose all information about their polls.
 * It seems that the polls mentioned in the paragraph at the top of the article are not repeated in the table. I believe this is to avoid redundancy. As for the 79% & 9% not being mentioned, it's obvious that the 79% is the "eight-in-ten (80%)" mentioned in the top paragraph. I don't know why they used a number one off, but the MOE is +/-3.2 so it doesn't matter statistically. Macdougal 02:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm aware of the method of weighting, however in a case like this it's fairly pointless. Weights are typically added when you're not doing random sampling or the sample size is too small. 1019 polled is not a small sample size and will give you a nice population deviation in terms of voters. To reweigh based on race, party affiliation, etc., are extremely questionable. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you assert that they don't disclose their weight formula; it's a standard practice to show both deviated numbers, the formula, and readjusted margin of error, none of which the Zogby poll does. The assertion that mentioning the numbers in the opening paragraphs alleviates them of the responsibility of couching it in the poll questions is false; the preamble alludes to questions which are subsequently posed in the poll given on the page, why repeat one question and not the other? Why not disclose the entire poll? Professor Ninja 04:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Additionally, I take issue with what criteria are used to decide what the "likely voter" is, or why only their opinions matter. It seems like a weasel term to get around adjusting results. How does Zogby know what a likely voter is? How does he know this issue (or others) won't galvanize people to vote? Oh, and this, to boot: "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked." -- okay, Terri wasn't in a coma (she was in a persistent vegetative state, a more severe condition) and she was on life support. So, the poll isn't pertinent and it's deliberately misdirective. Despite the mounds of evidence as to why the poll is seriously scientifically sketchy, even if we accept the premises as true, the conclusions don't follow. To say that the poll is a-okay and perfectly scientific still doesn't allow it to be included in this article. To assert that 80% of "likely voters" believe Terri should have remained on her legally, morally, intellectually-defined life support because 80% of "likely voters" said that somebody not on life support shouldn't be denied food and water is false. Even if the question weren't sketchy, it remains that it didn't define Terri's situation. Professor Ninja 04:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * (Last one in this reply flurry, I swear) Additionally, adjusting the statistics within the margin of error is indeed stastically significant. A poll that shows two people tied at something 50%/50% with a margin of error of +/-5% being "insignificantly" adjusted to 55%/45% is statistically incorrect. Or a similar poll of 50%/40% spread with +/-5% being changed to 45%/45%. Doesn't fly. Additionally, this poll doesn't seem to use qualifying data in its questions. It's curious that if you're going to do weights, you don't bother with the best weighting system around. Test questions asking to define aspects of the Terri Schiavo case/definition of PVS/definition of life support could have helped quantify the results significantly. If we see, for example, that 29% of people v. 61% of people believe Terri isn't on life support, and subsequently see that 29% v. 61% believe she should not be "denied food and water" we can make accurate correlations (esp. if the polls are individually crosstabulated) on knowledge and opinion in the case, which this poll also lacks. Whee. Every time I look at this thing I notice about five or six things wrong with it. I don't know if this was John "America's Hottest Pollster" Zogby's fault or the Christian Defense Coalition's fault, but somewhere along the somebody cocked up hard. Professor Ninja 04:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Macdougal, I don't think that Zogby's questions were biased, but you are right about the rest. As you correctly point out, most (probably all!) professional public opinion pollsters weight the answers they get, to adjust for atypical sample demographics.  That's just how polling is done.  For example, CBS says:
 * ''Do Our Respondents Look Like The American Public?
 * ''At the end of our surveys, we find sometimes that we have questioned too many people from one group or another. Older people, for example, tend to be at home to answer the phone more than younger people, so there is often a greater percentage of older people in our surveys than exists in the American public.
 * ''When that happens, we take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the whole population. That process is called “weighting.” We make sure that our final figures match U.S. Census Bureau breakdowns on age, sex, race, education, and region of the country. We also “weight” to adjust for the fact that people who share a phone with others have less chance to be contacted than people who live alone and have their own phones, and that households with more than one telephone number have more chances to be called than households with only one phone number.
 * ''So when we add up all the answers to our questions, we know that no one’s opinion counts for more than it should. When you see one of our poll results on TV or in the newspaper, you know that it does not show the opinions of only one or two groups of Americans.
 * NCdave 07:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Cute, but no. I find it hilarious that you completely obfuscate the issue. Pollsters, legitimate pollsters, conduct blind random sampling. A pseudorandom number generator should preferably spew out the polling possibilities and eliminate redundancies. The results should then be crosstabulated with quantifying data. That is the proper procedure for producing a randomly sampled poll. You realise that Zogby admits to weighing the data on race, sex, etc., correct? In other words if your black or female or whatever, your numbers are adjusted to conform? This completely destroys the entire point of polling. Zogby basically sells public opinion: Craft the question, divine the desired answer, massage the data, hold it up as a true result of shining public opinion. (And obviously, according to Zogby, non-voters opinions don't matter. They have no opinion! Who cares about them? It's not like they don't vote for a reason or anything. Just ignore them.) As for the assertion that it's not bias, I find that curious, given that Zogby reprints on his site an article that cites an answer to a question about somebody not on life support, and therefore not Terri Schiavo, as proof that most "Americans" (again, American depends on race, age, sex, party affiliation, and likelihood of vote. If you're not the right kind of these things, why, by golly, you ain't American!) do not support the removal of Terri Schiavo's life support. He reprints it knowingly with those errors displayed. He makes no effort to correct the incorrect interpretation of the data or create an errata section for his polling results. He proudly displays his status in the media under its own section, knowing full well that his misleading poll results are being foisted unsuspecting on the body public. If that's not bias, then the word has no meaning. Professor Ninja 08:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Crosstabulated with quantifying data?" Professor, what sort of "quantifying data" would you have them "crosstabulate" the results with?  :-)
 * Here's another example for you. This is how the ABC News / Washington Post pollsters weight their results on the basis of race, sex, etc.:
 * "Final data are weighted using demographic information from the Census to adjust for sampling and non-sampling deviations from population values. Respondents customarily are classified into one of 48 cells based on age, race, gender and education. Weights are assigned so the proportion in each of these 48 cells matches the actual population proportion according to the Census Bureau’s most recent Current Population Survey."
 * NCdave 09:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I would have them "crosstabulate" their "data" with "quantifying" "information" such as "level" "of" knowledge, and "other" pertinent "fac"tors. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
 * I think given my clear position on the borderline non-scientific standards of convenience sampling in news polls, you're not so much illustrating your own point as illustrating mine. Why not try reading sometime? It's helpful, and can be informative. There's a pretty standard way to get statistics, and weights are not one of them. First of all, census data is skewed. It's inaccurate. There's a matter of chronology, lack of response, fudging the responses, etc., etc.
 * The mystical quantifying data that you seem so drastically confused about as to put in quotes to once again try to make it out that you're the one who secretly knows what you're talking about would be the factors you so insist on weighing. You crosstabulate it with the qualifying data ("their opinions" :-), if that helps) and then output it all. Then instead of getting "well, we refactored the data based on likelihood of voting" (even worse than conforming the ranges to proportionate census data, there is a difference that you, much like everything you've advanced, attempt to gloss over) you get results like: 48% of people 65 and over... 52% of people 25-45... etc., etc. That way each subgroup is randomly sampled accurately, instead of having weights assigned. And, like I pointed out, Zogby didn't weigh them to conform to proportionate standard population distribution, they weighed them to conform to "likely voters". A much different thing. Professor Ninja 10:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

What was put in Terri's article about the Zogby poll revealed it to be a Strawman Attack on Michael. The question apparently was something like, "if someone was in Terri Schiavo's condition, except you remove the PVS part, should their feeding tube be removed?" Most said "no". Well great, that was not Terri's condition. Terri was PVS. Of all the doctors who gave her a full medical exam, 6 say she was PVS, 2 say she was not. IF you remove the doctors with bias, your down to 5 say PVS and ZERO say not. -FuelWagon

 * That's not correct, FuelWagon. PVS is diagnosed behaviorally, and requires lengthy examinations.  Cranford spent only 45 minutes with her.  Gambone testified that he examined her about three times per year, but he spent only about 10 minutes per exam.  Dr. Greer spent 30 minutes with her.  Bambakidis (the doctor appointed by Judge Greer) spent 30 minutes with her.  Those are not full exams, they are cursory, and it is a scandal that a woman's death was ordered on the basis of such cursory examinations.   This AP article suggests Dr. Barnhill didn't examine Terri her at all, but rather did his diagnosis of PVS based on videotapes and medical records.  (That's five, who is the sixth?)

 * The doctors selected by the Schindler family, who both found her to be non-PVS, spent much more time with her. Even the neurologist sent over by the Florida Dept. of Children and Families, Dr. Cheshire, was much more thorough than any of the doctors who Felos and M.Schiavo chose, and he spent 90 minutes with her.

 * If you eliminate the doctors selected by the two sides in the legal battle (who could arguably be assumed to be biased), and those who didn't actually see the patient, I think that you are left with only two doctors: Bambakidis (the doctor appointed by Judge Greer) who spent 30 minutes with Terri, and Cheshire (the doctor who saw Terri for the FL DCF) who spent 90 minutes with her. Bambakidis concluded that a "preponderance of evidence" favored the diagnosis of PCS - pointedly using legal language that simply means "more likely than not" and falls short of the "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard.  Cheshire concluded, with an equal degree of certainty, that Terri was not in a PVS, but, rather, was in a Minimally Conscious State.

Wow, if you remove the doctors selected by the two sides, your left with the doctors selected by GREER! But Greer is Michael's pet judge, you said! Now you trust Greer? Is that what you're saying? Greer's selection is trustworth? Or do you simply remove the doctors selected by Michael because that conveniently gets rid of 4 diagnosis that Terri is PVS? FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you also consider the doctors who expressed conclusions on the basis of the videotaped exams and available medical records, then a large majority disagreed with the PVS diagnosis, including over four dozen neurologists.

 * The bottom line is that the only way to support a clear diagnosis of PVS is to give disproportionate weight to the doctors who were hired by Felos/M.Schindler for the express purpose of supporting that diagnosis. NCdave 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Bottom line to get your diagnosis is to give disproportional weight to physicians who watch 5 minutes of video doctored by the parents from 5 hours of raw footage and scale down the diagnosis by all the doctors who actually spent time with her. FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you do not understand the concept of STRAWMAN attack, go friggen look it up. It is meant to show a weakened version of Michael's position so that it is easier to tear down. The poll can go into an article about euthenasia, and right to die, since it has relevance there as to where the boundary should be. But to put it into an article about Terri is to present the poll as if it fairly represents Terri's condition. It does not. Professor Ninja points out some possible bias in the source as well, which might explain why the poll used such loaded questions. But regardless of the source, the POLL IS A STRAWMAN ATTACK. I don't give a damn if every news channel in the country is talking about it. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN TERRI'S ARTICLE. FuelWagon 11:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I brought that up as well. It's one of the many things wrong with this poll. It's probably right up there in the top three, along with the shady sampling and irrelevant questions. It's not even appropriate to call it a strawman attack, really, because Michael Schiavo wasn't arguing to kill somebody not on life support or not PVS, as the poll asserted. It's not a weakened version of his argument; it's just plain not his argument at all. If you're going to classify it as a logical fallacy, it's more an ad hominem attack than anything. If you look at this update you'll see that it's asserting that "A Zogby poll [38] (http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11131) on April 1st asked different questions and found that 79% thought the patient should not have food and water taken away while only 9 percent said yes." Actually, if you look over the poll questions, stipulations of those questions, definition of life support, PVS, etc., you'll find that it asserts no such thing, it makes a totally extraneous conclusion and attempts to draw relevance. Too many relevant dissimilarities to allow it to go in, even if we do decide, for the sake of argument, to accept it as scientific. I'm, sadly, just reiterating this, as NCdave has a habit of bogging down responses as much as possible. Professor Ninja 11:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The sampling and weighting are pretty standard professional polling practice. Here's another example of how one of their competitors does it.  The Battleground / Tarrance Group poll does weighting as follows:
 * "quotas are set by state and by gender based on voter registration statistics or voting age population, where applicable. Prior election turnout statistics are also used to set these quotas. For the 2004 Battlegrounds, we have been applying a weight to the demographics of race and party identification. Race is weighted to White=80%, African Americans=10%, Hispanics=6%, and Other races=4%. Party identification is weighted to even with Republican=42.3%, Democrat=42.3%, and Independent=15.4%." (The demographics are consistent with the most recent census.)

 * The questions are fine, too -- no strawmen or misleading questions there.

 * Y'all also complained that the Zobgy poll was limited to "likely voters." But what is the problem with that?  Surely likely voters are more apt to be engaged and informed on the issues than are people who are too apathetic to vote, wouldn't you agree?  Do you have a problem with that?  (After all, you just said that you think that pollsters should "crosstabulate" their data with "level of knowledge."  :-) )

 * (And, contrary to your assertion, Terri was neither on life support nor in a PVS.) NCdave 05:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * And the earth is flat.FuelWagon 06:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Whee, nothing like not knowing what you're talking about to make your opinion more valid. Anyway, I'll let you figure out what crosstabulate means, as I haven't the time to scan in the various sociology handbooks that outline the proper format for taking data to post up and make you look even more like an idiot like I did with your "OMG HAMMESFAHR'S NOBEL NOMINATION WAS LEGITIMATE" and like another poster did with your "OMG MICHAEL SCHIAVO ADMITS HE'S A SATAN ON LARRY KING ALIVE" nonsense. Terri was on life support, any way you look at it. Her feeding tube supported her life. Not only did it support her life, but it supported her life by bypassing several of her organs and muscles because she couldn't swallow. Other people on life support (including some mechanical respiration, for one) often have less complex support systems than that. Furthermore, Florida law says she was on life support. The law in the jurisdiction in which she lived said that it was life support. Even if you exclude the relevant comparisons to other life support systems, which only you would be dense enough to do, you fall into the legal problem. So what is life support? If it's not something that bypasses the bodily functions which naturally keep you alive because those functions don't work (like Terri's gastric feeding tube did) and it's not something that's legally considered life support (like Terri's gastric feeding tube was) what, exactly, is life support? You constantly assert that it's not life support despite 100% evidence to the contrary, but you fail to define what life support is and why Terri's feeding tube was exclusive of that. You also fail (well, just about in everything) in explaining why she wasn't in a PVS. Do a few doctors that saw a tape that was heavily edited down from many hours (hours the Schindlers oddly refuse to let the public view, despite the fact that it provides overwhelming proof that Terri's not PVS) make it a legitimate diagnosis? Come on dave, you're amusing me here. Keep chugging along. Professor Ninja 12:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Professor Ninja, you say that "she couldn't swallow."' What is your authority for that?  Tell us: what physican made that claim?  Did any'' physician say that?  Did even Cranford or Barnhill make such a statement?

 * The fact is that everyone who visited Terri could see that she swallowed her own saliva without difficulty. Terri's saliva production and saliva swallowing were normal, a fact which was confirmed by numerous physicians, and attested to by affidavit from many of them, such as Dr. Jay Carpenter, a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital.  The only question was whether or not Terri's swallowing capability was sufficient to permit her to be sustained by spoon-feeding.

 * There was a lot of evidence that that Terri might have been capable of being sustained by spoon-feeding. There's not much difference between swallowing saliva and swallowing other liquids and slurries.  Plus, we know that nurses and family members used to sneak her Jell-O and pudding treats (in violation of Michael Schiavo's standing orders), because (they testified) she obviously enjoyed them.

 * Terri also was able to swallow Holy Communion, and she was sufficiently aware of what was going on that she would close her eyes while the priest prayed.

 * Terri hadn't had a swallowing test in about 13 years, because Michael would not permit it. Guardian ad litem Wolfson recommended swallowing therapy and swallowing tests for Terri, and Terri's family petitioned the court to allow it, and included affidavits from several medical experts who said that they believed that Terri could benefit from it.

 * But Judge Greer refused to permit swallowing therapy or tests for Terri. However, he proved that even he didn't believe that Terri was unable to swallow, when he specifically forbade Terri's family from giving her food and water by mouth. If he was certain that she couldn't accept food and water by mouth, then he wouldn't have had to prohibit it to ensure her death.

 * The extent of Terri's ability to swallow, and whether she could have gotten along without the feeding tube, developed into one of the main areas of dispute in this case. At first blush, that seems odd, because it was an argument which could have been resolved easily, simply by giving Terri swallowing therapy and tests.  It is revealing that the Schindlers were confident enough of their position that they sought swallowing therapy and tests for Terri, but that Felos & M.Schiavo were so un confident of their position that they refused to allow the therapy and tests that would have resolved the dispute. NCdave 06:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 17


text:
Division of Lingiari

The Division of Lingiari is an Australian electoral division in the Northern Territory that covers the entirety of the territory outside of the Division of Solomon, which covers Darwin and surrounding areas. The division also includes the territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Lingiari includes all of the Northern Territory's remote Indigenous communities, most of whom vote when visited by mobile polling teams during the election campaign.

The current MP is Marion Scrymgour, a member of the Australian Labor Party. Scrymgour herself is Indigenous and inherited Tiwi identity from her mother.

Geography
Federal electoral division boundaries in Australia are determined at redistributions by a redistribution committee appointed by the Australian Electoral Commission. Redistributions occur for the boundaries of divisions in a particular state or territory, and they occur every seven years, or sooner if a state or territory's representation entitlement changes or when divisions of a state or territory are malapportioned.

History
The division was named after prominent Aboriginal rights activist Vincent Lingiari AM (1908–1988), who was a member of the Gurindji nation. Other divisions named after Aboriginal Australians are Bennelong in New South Wales, Blair and Bonner in Queensland, and Cooper and Nicholls in Victoria.

The division was one of the two established when the former Division of Northern Territory was redistributed on 21 December 2000. It covers almost the entire Territory—except for the area around Darwin, which is covered by the Division of Solomon—an area of 1347849 km2. It is the second largest electorate in terms of area in Australia, the largest being the Division of Durack in Western Australia. The division also includes the Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. From its formation until the 2022 Australian federal election, it had been held by Warren Snowdon of the Australian Labor Party, who transferred there after the Division of Northern Territory was abolished.

At the time of the 2004 election, there were 58,205 people enrolled to vote in Lingiari, making it one of the least populous divisions in Australia. Lingiari has the largest Indigenous population in Australia; as of the 2013 election, 42.7 percent of the population was Indigenous.

Election results
{{legend|#F8981D|Country Liberal}} {{legend|#DE3533|Labor}} {{legend|#0047AB|Liberal}} {{legend|#00A651|Greens}} {{legend|#F36C21|One Nation}} {{legend|#E52B50|Shooters, Fishers, Farmers}} {{legend|#FFCD00|Australian Democrats}}

title: Division of Lingiari