Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 5

NCDave's POV Editing
I realize that this talk page is already very long, so I'm sorry to have to start yet another new section, but I feel that until this issue is resolved, we'll make little progress on fixing this article. NCDave has repeatedly demonstrated that he has very strong views about the Schiavo case, and has edited accordingly. Throughout the discussion on this page, in the two archived pages, and in the material Fox1 deleted last night, NCDave has shown that he is unable or unwilling to set aside his personal beliefs while he is editing, and that he will add only information that helps his side of things. He also frequently delays obvious corrections to the material he posts and occasionally reverts or misrepresents that information that he does not feel supports his position. Tonight, he has engaged in a mini edit war over the medical fact that much of Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been destroyed.

I'm trying to take the temperature of those who have contributed to this article, to see if they feel the same way. If so, I feel it would be best for all involved, including NCDave, if he refrains from editing this article in the immediate future, or, at the very least, refrains from editing without first publically airing his proposed changes on this talk page and securing the approval of at least a couple of people who are not known for flouting Wikipedia's POV policy. Until NCDave stops trying to advance his agenda by use of Wikipedia, I feel that this article will never get anywhere. What say you others? SS451 03:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that all of NCDave's edits are unfair, but I wouldn't mind looking at the edits of everybody more closely for a couple days. I will refrain from future edits, so this can hopefully happen. Baricom 04:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * To quote myself from further up this page I'm growing more and more frustrated with this article and the way honest editors, like yourself, seeking an NPOV article gets viciously attacked and derided. I don't really don't think we'll get anywhere before we've been through mediation and arbitration or have sufficient editors agree that we just ignore NCDave. But we can't force the man to anything. The only solution is to go through the whole dispute resolution thing or maybe just to outnumber him and outgun him with high quality editing :) Preisler 04:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that NCDave's quite hilarious "numerous articles in the local newspaper" link to the St Pete. newspaper article shows off his POV nicely. Lower case, no summary, placed right at the bottom... it gave me quite a bit of a giggle.  I guess a slipshod, half-hearted attempt at quasi-NPOV is better than no NPOV at all. Lankiveil 07:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).


 * I think it's time to start dispute resolution. High quality editing can stop the bleeding, but partisans like NCDave ultimately have greater endurance, in my experience. JJ 04:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is getting out of control.  --AStanhope 05:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think we can trust NCDave to restrain himself voluntarily from pushing POV on this page. Lankiveil 06:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC).


 * I would support a Request for Comment on this article and the POV editing surrounding it. Mike H 05:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I second the above. Neutralitytalk 05:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page has been on the RFC since february 27th. Preisler 06:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm extremely frustrated by the continuing efforts of the anti-Terri partisans here to inject their POV bias into the article, and their continuing personal attacks. I have been trying to make this article balanced/NPOV, but they keep replacing solid, factual, footnoted information with outrageous nonsense from the Felos propaganda machine, stated not as "xxx says," but stated as if it were simple undisputed fact. For shame!

For example (one of many examples), one of the blatant lies from Felos et al is that Terri has no cerebral cortex. This is how the anti-Terri partisans put it, when they inserted it into the Wiki article:
 * Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid.

In the "edit summary" contents:
 * SS451 said, "Added information about Schiavo's loss of cerebral cortex--I've heard no dispute over that"
 * Neutrality [sic] said, "That Schiavo's cerebral cortex is destroyed and replaced by spinal fluid is a medical fact."

They've got to be kidding. Anyone who has "heard no dispute" over that has obviously been reading material from only one POV. Numerous neurologists have ridiculed that absurd claim. Surely nobody who has seen the videos of Terri provided by her family (and who knows what a cerebral cortex is), or who has read the descriptions of how Terri responds and interacts with the people around her can possibly believe it. For a start, see:

http://johnsipos.com/terrivideos/ and http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/johansen200503160848.asp and http://cogforlife.org/schiavoweller.htm

Michael Schiavo won't permit a PET scan, which would show the ACTUAL extent of the damage to Terri's cerebral cortex.

Even GAL Wolfson argued for additional testing. He had told the local press BEFORE he was appointed GAL that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be withdrawn, and Terri's family objected to him being chosen as GAL, because of that evidence of bias. But after his 30 day review of the case, even he recommended that further testing be done to determine her condition, before removing her feeding tube. Michael Schiavo, however, backed up by Judge Greer, refused to allow those tests.

The previous GAL, Dr. Pearse, flatly recommended against removing her feeding tube. But Judge Greer rejected that advice.

Now Congress has, by huge bipartisan majorities, approved emergency legislation to save Terri's life. Isn't it obvious that the Michael Schiavo backers who dominate Wiki are way, way out of step with the rest of America? NCdave 07:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Dave! Dave! Stop, for your own sake, confusing the issue! If you have sources that contend that that information is incorrect, present, let's discuss them, and let's get the article NPOVed properly. Stop going off on tangents and asking editors to view video evidence and somehow determine ourselves whether her cortex is destroyed. How many neurologists do you think we have editing this? You just accused your "opponents" (not really a healthy attitude to have here) of eschewing facts and attacking you personally, then you mostly avoided the issue at hand, attacked people personally for being hopelessly biased, and tried again to divert this entire process into another debate that few have the expert opinions necessary to conduct. Try and stick to the topic.
 * Fox1 07:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as far as the article being out of step with america:
 * this is of absolutely no concern to Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia is not an "American" project.
 * Fox1 07:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view editing is not simply to edit based on "what everyone thinks". That's why there are articles on Holocaust denial and such. Mike H 07:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But that's not what I object to.  I object to things like this:
 * They also claim that Ms. Schiavo was a victim of domestic violence both before and after her injury, though they have no evidence to support this.


 * Everything after the comma is Felos / Michael Schiavo propaganda. It is blatantly false.  It is absolutely indefensible.


 * I tend to agree. Even though I personally doubt any claims of abuse can every be verified to any acceptable degree, the material presented to support the claims of abuse should be "evidence" according to my understanding of the word, supported by a quick dictionary search (which I won't quote). Even if it was all completely falsified (and I in no way mean to imply that any of it is), wouldn't it still be "evidence", at least until proven false? I feel a wording along these lines would be preferable: They also claim that Ms. Schiavo was a victim of domestic violence both before and after her injury, although the evidence supporting these claim has been challenged/is disputed.- MMad (wiki noob)


 * Whether or not you find the evidence persuasive, Terri's family has a lot of it. I had included in the article links to much of that evidence.  The bone scan link remains in the article, for now, and a Hentoff article.  But most of those informational links have been deleted by the Felos/Michael Schiavo partisans here: the nurses' affidavits about how he abused Terri in the nursing home, the testimony by Michael's first girlfriend after Terri that she is terrified of him, the testimony of another woman with whom he had a relationship about his "crazy" behavior toward her, the testimony of Terri's brother and sister about how Michael had assaulted them, etc..


 * Do you see the pattern? First they delete most of the evidence, then they add a statement saying, flat-out, that there is no evidence.  And, of course, they accuse me of injecting POV bias into the article, or worse.


 * Jerry Pournelle says, "you can prove anything if you make up your data."


 * Here on Wiki, it is more like, "you can prove anything if you make up your data, and censor the contrary evidence. NCdave 08:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Um. Wow. Your intellect is obviously being wasted on wikipedia, I suggest you leave this all behind you and run for a district judge position in Florida... After all, they have it all wrong and you seem to have it all figured out. :-/ If you change your mind, you might want to think about who you owe an apology to, since your last comment said some pretty mean things about a bunch of well meaning people. Gmaxwell 08:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * NCdave, perhaps you should learn the difference between hearsay and conjecture, and real, hard evidence. Bone scans that show physical trauma are not evidence, for example, of domestic abuse. They are evidence of, not very surprisingly, physical trauma. That's all. I'm sure a bone scan done on my body would reveal massive evidence of previous physical traumas, but it is not proof that anybody, girlfriends, parents, relatives, friends or total strangers, had ever raised their hand against me (as indeed they haven't, at least not in a way that has ever fractured or dislocated bone.) Surely you wouldn't then mind somebody pointing out that until their falling out the Schindlers were exceptionally supportive and cooperative of Michael Schiavo despite the fact that he was apparently abusive towards them, and that surely the nursing staff would have informed her parents that he was abusing Terri at some point in time, though curiously these only arose after the bone scans done on Terri. That, too, is absolutely factual. Though I doubt it helps enforce your POV, so why not just omit that part. Professor Ninja 11:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While mediation would be one solution we could utilize to resolve this long-standing conflict, I am concerned about the requirement that the article be reverted to the "pre-dispute" status and protected during the mediation process, which could possibly last for a week or more. Terri Schiavo's case is an ongoing event, and if this article is essentially frozen for a period of a week or more at this critical time during the course of events, it would quickly become out of date. I'm not familiar with the arbitration process--does a majority here think that this should now be taken to the arbitration committee, or are there other solutions that we could try first? Plain old discussion seems to be having little effect--NCDave now appears to define the editing of this article as a conflict, and is apparently determined that his side will "win." SS451 21:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have a concern regarding the neutrality of the external links given on this issue. The Schindler-Schiavo Foundation's Website www.terrisfight.net appears to be full of outright lies regarding the factual matters in the case, including the fact that they believe that Judge Greer was illegally appointed to the court and that the reasons for her illness have not been explained. I also have an objection to NCDave's POV Edits, but strictly on the neutrality grounds. The process of this site is to be informational. (unsigned)

The use of the terms "anti-terri" and "pro-terri", of which NCDave appears to be the chief offender, are highly prejudicial. If her husband is correct about her wishes (and the courts and opinion polls support this side), those who would retain the feeding tube would in fact be anti-terri not those that wish to remove it. Since there is some controversy of which opinion Terri herself actually held, it is inappropriate for either side to co-opt these terms but the preponderance of evidence indicates describing removing feeding as "anti-terri" is particularly egregious. These terms are projecting views onto Terri herself without compelling evidence to back it up (indeed the evidence seems to weigh against this view). pro-feeding and anti-feeding would be somewhat less ambiguous and somewhat less prejudicial. It appears that the husband's position, corroborated by two of his relatives, was that these were her explicitly stated views whereas the parent's claim is not that she stated she would not want life support but that she would not want life support removed because it conflicts with the Catholic faith they indoctrinated her with (in the poll referenced below, Catholics actually favored removing feeding tube by about 2:1), that she had never discussed her preferences on this matter with them, and that even if she had expressed a desire have feeding removed, | they would not honor it. The claims of abuse and financial conflict of interest by the husband do not seem to be borne out by evidence but the parent's have demonstated a clear conflict of interest by indicating that they had no intention of honoring their daughter's preferences even if known. CNN cited an |ABCnews poll tonight that stated that American's were about 2:1 in favor of terminating feeding and believed by about 4:1 that the legislative actions to keep her on life support was for political gain and not for Terri's benefit. Catholics were 2:1 in favor of removing the feeding tube. It also reported that half of Americans discussed their own views regarding their own fates with friends/family as a result of the case and 78% indicated they would not want life support in similar cases. Margin of error: 4.5%. So calling the factions that favor removing the feeding tube "anti-terri" is not only prejudicial it also appears to be orwellian doublespeak which misrepresents the preponderance of evidence on Terri's own views. 65.40.216.240 03:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link Cleanup March 21st 2005
This are the links I removed, March 21, 2005:


 * Timeline of Events from Terri Schiavo's collapse (1990) to Michael Schiavo's DNR order (1993)
 * Documents concerning the circumstances surrounding Terri Schiavo's collapse
 * Evidence of Physical Abuse Haunts Michael Schiavo	 	* Killing Terri Schiavo Op-ed with a comprehensive summary of the case
 * The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities
 * Not Dead Yet - Disability-rights activist site
 * Articles by Wesley J. Smith (attorney, author, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide)
 * April 30, 2004: The Assault on Terri Schiavo Continues
 * January 30, 2004: The Rule of Terri's Case Strikes Again
 * January 19, 2004: Beyond Terri's Law: What We Can Learn From the Schiavo Case
 * December 4, 2003: The Guardian Speaks
 * November 13, 2003: A "Painless" Death?
 * October 31, 2003: Life, Death, and Silence
 * October 28, 2003: The Interview That Wasn't
 * October 27, 2003: The Consequences of Casual Conversations
 * October 22, 2003: The Battle for Terri
 * October 21, 2003: Saving Terri Schiavo
 * October 20, 2003: No Mercy in Florida - The horrifying case of Terri Schiavo, and what it portends
 * October 1, 2003: Waking from the Dead
 * September 16, 2003: Terri Schiavo's Life and Death: Time Gained
 * September 5, 2003: Schiavo's Date with Death: A Florida Woman Needs Non-Dehydration Intervention


 * UM ETHICS PROGRAMS HOME > SCHIAVO CASE RESOURCES PROJECT > Selected Schiavo and related Web links

Please give us some - ANY - biographical data about this woman pre-controversy
I do realize that Schaivo is only famous because of her vegetative state and the controversy resulting from it, but this article is sorely lacking in ANY information about her prior to 1990. Where did she live at the time? (In fact, where exactly is she now? What city?)  What did she do? Where did she grow up? Does she have any children? None of these questions are answered. Moncrief 06:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I replaced the non-neutral image at the top with a pre-incident image. Not only does it avoid drawing the viewer to any unreasonable conclusions about her level of awareness (the earlier image wasn't typical for her state), but it is a bit of a glimpse into the person that she once was Gmaxwell 08:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The previous image should be placed into the article, further down, explaining what conclusions some people would like to be drawn from the image and reasons why the other side disagrees. Fix POV by contextualizing, not by deleting wholesale. Jdavidb 18:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again (and I feel like a broken record) can anyone put in even the NAME OF HER CITY both pre- and post- brain damage? I don't want to hunt for it because I am not that invested in this story, but I am amazed that all locational data other than the state of Florida references I've put in have been absent from this. Again: WHAT CITY DOES THIS WOMAN LIVE IN? WHERE DID SHE LIVE PRIOR TO HER BRAIN DAMAGE? Why is this information missing and why does no one put it in?? Moncrief 23:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate to be blunt, but Terri Schiavo as a person was not/is not particularly notable. The issues that have arisen from her brain damage and the subsequent attempts to remove her feeding tube are very notable. If someone can find out where she lived and maybe a little bit of biographical background, that would be nice, but it isn't very high on anyone's priority list. Perhaps once this situation reaches some kind of equilibrium, we can work on fleshing out the details of Terri's pre-collapse life. SS451 23:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but you don't even think that the name of the city she lived in/is living in is relevant?? I disagree with that. This article fails to answer one of the major questions of journalism/encyclopedia writing.. WHERE is this occurring?  Moncrief 00:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The hospice where she lives currently is in Pinellas Park, Florida, so I'm assuming she lived somewhere in Pinellas County. Mike H 01:36, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * There, the article is edited. Mike H 01:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a paragraph about her life before her collapse. It could use a lot of fixing but it's a start.  Not much point in saying too much before 1990 IMHO though.  JYolkowski 01:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That was all that was needed, imo.  Moncrief 02:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

what are the details of the 3/20 legislation?
what is the exact wording of the law that passed? does it only apply to Terri Schiavo? or does it speak in general terms? can this law apply to anyone else in the USA? Kingturtle 06:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

working text of the Act, posted to FindLaw, dated 19 March 2005
A link was provided by the New York Times a short while ago. I wonder how the lawyers vetted it. Someone let us know if this is the version as passed. 24.25.219.8 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.


 * Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


 * SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.


 * The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.


 * SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.


 * Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.


 * SEC. 3. RELIEF.


 * After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.


 * SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.


 * Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.


 * SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.


 * Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.


 * SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.


 * Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--
 * (1) to assisting suicide, or
 * (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.


 * SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.


 * Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.


 * SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.


 * Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.


 * SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.


 * It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

24.25.219.8 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks the same to me as S. 686, the text of the bill as enacted. --Goobergunch|? 21:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should somebody make a Sun Hudson article?
I'm more than willing to make a Sun Hudson article that contrasts neatly with the Terri Schiavo case. Sun Hudson was removed from life support and died due to a rare form of genetic dwarfism which caused his lungs to be too small. Interestingly, this was in Texas, and was under a law passed by then-Governor Bush (the Advanced Directives Act) -- while I'm personally supportive of Michael Schiavo, it's not done as a swipe or simply a NPOV inflammatory exercise. It'd be facts-only, clearly, and, I believe, allow people to create a more informed opinion of the clearly subjective opinions of euthanisia, right-to-life, etc. Professor Ninja 08:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You can also make one on Texas Futile Care Law Saopaulo1 10:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is Sun Hudson relevant? As I understand Sun Hudson was unable to breathe unaided, while Terri Schiavo can. She isn’t hooked up to "machines." She is simply fed through a low-tech device invented in the nineteenth century. After all, everyone needs food and water to survive.  --ClemMcGann 10:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Sun Hudson is relevant, yes. Sun Hudson was unable to breathe unaided in much the same way Terri Shiavo is unable to eat unaided. I also disagree that the timestamp of the invention of a device gives it merit as a meter to whether or not somebody should remain connected to the mechanisms which artificially promote their life. While Sun Hudson had a fully functional brain, Terri Schiavo, all debates to the extent of the brain damage aside, does not. In one instance it is a case of a fully neurologically developed human being with a defective organ being removed from life support by a law passed by Bush against the wishes of his mother and legal guardian, the other instance is a case where a totally non-functional human being with workings organs is being kept on a life support system contrary to the wishes of her legal guardian but persuant to the wishes of her non-legal guardian parents at the bidding of a law, again, passed by Bush. It does create an interesting and extremely informative contrast. I'm not leading the horse to water, I'm just putting up a trough in case one of them wants a drink. Professor Ninja 10:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore we really are stretching the bounds of arbitrary meter here, aren't we? We all, also, need oxygen to survive. In fact oxygen is more directly related to survival than sustenance or hydration. Additionally if we're to comment that Terri Schiavo's "different" because she uses a feeding tube to eat and that's not a true life support system like a respirator or ventilator is, then we should be reminded that Schiavo needs to bypass her throat muscles which are, like Sun Hudson's lungs, incapable of functioning in a life-sustaining capacity. Additionally, Sun was suffocated alive, whereas Terri would go into an unconcious cardiac arrest. The similarities and striking contrasts of the case make it extremely relevent especially vis. the possible politicking and grandstanding resulting from the Schiavo case that could prove extremely informative to those who want to know. Are similar cases now "more equal than others" based on their exposure in the media? Sun Hudson set a bioethical precedent in being the first person let die under the futile care laws contradictory to the wishes of his legal guardian, and irrespective of the similarities and contrasts to the Schiavo case, this important enough to warrant a seperate article. Professor Ninja 11:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason it ahs no relevence to this article is the midget was of sound mind to decide. Terri can not say her postion on the subject. If you want your plug pulled, and you can say pull my plug it doesn't matter what your mommy wants. But if you can't then it is a whole new world, as this article explores. --Cvnl 21:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so a woman unable to speak for herself is thus spoken for by her legal guardian, contradicted by her non-legal guardian parents is not at all comparable to the inherently contradictory nature of a 6-month-old "midget" (a midget is somebody short, usually accepted as less than five feet tall, but otherwise normally proportioned, dwarf, on the other hand, is the non-pejorative term I'm sure you struggled hard to drum up) who, obviously, is of sound mind at sixth months old to decide whether or not he should live or die, and, furthermore, able to voice it (unlike Terri...) you know what? Why don't I just cut the crap and hope to God you're being sarcastic as hell? Professor Ninja 21:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed text without POV worries
Because of the widespread discussions here on this talk page I want to supersede the existing article with http://homepage.mac.com/garyligi/iblog/C1382926012/E1774124522/, which I found to be completely unbiased. In spite of copyright issues about this text I still hope my modest proposal will prevail. Regards, de:Benutzer:Keimzelle


 * Personally, instead of that text, I'd rather base the new article on the last February 9 edit, which is probably the last time it was reasonably NPOV. Mike H 18:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Media Linking
Yahoo links to this page here. Don't know if this should be noted somewhere?

Pedantic But Relevant
Shouldn't "Ms. Schiavo" be "Mrs. Schiavo"? I have not been able to find a reasonable (and reliable) set of rules that discusses the approrpriateness of using "Ms." to describe a still-married woman...
 * Well. Check this out ms.. Preisler 21:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm for Mrs. It shouldn't be such a big ordeal. Mike H 23:21, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ms. is slightly more standard where encyclopedia or news articles are concerned. I say leave it the way it is, in the absence of any information that prior to her collapse, she preferred Mrs. SS451 03:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)