User talk:Musicman11

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski 15:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Terri Schiavo
Hello MusicMan.

Listen... It's great that you're enthusiastic about participating in the Terri Schiavo article. It isn't acceptable, however, for you to simply show up without having been involved in any of the article writing or discussion or consensus building and simply redo the entire thing, particularly with information that has a very strong point of view, i.e. "her lips and eyes are bleeding."

Ultimately, you are wasting your time because the many of us on all sides of the issue who have toiled for hours to produce a comprehensive, fair article won't accept those changes and we will simply undo them.

You are welcome to participate in the overall process along with everyone else. Please do not continue in the fashion you are acting now. Thanks. --AStanhope 16:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that anyone could edit any article. The fact that her father said that her lips and eyes were bleeding is true and relevant, and it was properly attributed. Thanks.

NPOV
Please review WP:NPOV. Thank you and warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 16:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

The article was not very NPOV before my edits.

Quote removed
I removed the quote you put in, since this is the only thing i could find

So the "wouldn't want to die" line stays, the "wouldn't want to starve to death" has been deleted. Fuzheado | Talk 16:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/schiavo/

Do you have a quote from them saying that she souldn't want to die?

Your link is to something her brother said, not her parents, and it isn't a direct quote.

Feeding tube
Your edit comment that the feeding tube isn't life support is at best a matter in high dispute and, at worst, incorrect. The medical community and the court system regards the feeding tube as life support (because it is a sustaining medical treatment which does not improve a persons wellness, but merely sustains their life) and there is little to no debate on this matter within the medical community. However, the text resulting from your edit is pretty reasonable. Perhaps we should make it read "feeding tube, or any other life sustaning treatment"Gmaxwell 17:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To say they want to remove her from life support without clarifying that she was only hooked up to a feeding tube is very confusing. When you say that someone is on life support, most people don't think feeding tubes. It needs to be clarified, especially as Terri's family has contended that a feeding tube should not be considered life support (and in fact was not considered life support in 1980).

I think it should just say "feeding tube", because no other form of life sustaining treatment is at issue. The only reason to insert "life support" is to push a particular point of view.

Let me further explain that point of view that is being pushed. Back in 1980 Terri is alleged to have said that she wouldn't want to be put on life support. Those who wish to kill Terri have pointed to this to say that she would want the feeding tube removed. However, under Florida law in 1980 a feeding tube was not considered life support in 1980, and more importantly, not everyone considers a feeding tube to be life support, and the Schindler's contend that even if she did make the statement she didn't mean that she would want to be starved to death.

So simply saying that they want her put on life support is not fair. I think you should just say that they want her kept on a feeding tube, and if you want to add the full details down below that's fine, but just mentioning life support without anything else, when Terri's family specifically says on their website that " Is Terri receiving life support? Not in the traditional sense." and "She lives free of any life support machines and receives nutrition through a tube that is connected only at meal times." is completely unfair.


 * Ah, I see your point, but it is a factual matter that they object to the removal of any life sustaining treatment, in their court filings (except the temporary injunction attempts) they are not specific about the feeding tube. In their guardianship trial they said they would support some pretty far out means to keep her 'alive'.  It's pointless for us to argue what terri thought was life support in 1980, although it would be silly of us to think she had any detailed knowldge of what florida law considered life support at the time... Judging by the pollings, most people *do* regard the feeding tube as life support. The argument could go either way, and the top of the article isn't the place to include it.  It's accurate to state they they are petitioning the courts to prevent the removal of any life sustaining measures, in the section on their argument we can include the position that the feeding tube isn't life support.Gmaxwell 17:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a factual matter, but it is not a particularly relevant one, certainly not for the first few paragraphs. That said, I don't care if it is kept in. I agree that the top of the page is not the place to discuss all the details.

As for whether or not most people regard the feeding tube as life support, it's certainly not the case that all people feel that way, and more importantly I think you confuse people by saying that she's on life support without explaining what that means. If we could all agree we could just say that her parents want her kept alive, but that would imply that her husband wants her to die, so people might not like that.


 * I think the text I put in "the feeding tube, or any other life-sustaining treatment" avoids the confusion and also avoids implying that keeping the feeding tube is the only goal of theirs. It doesn't cause the 'husband wants her to die' problem because I don't think anyone would object to the idea that her husband wants to end 'life sustaining treatment'.Gmaxwell 17:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)