Talk:Terri Schiavo case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTerri Schiavo case has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 6, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 26, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 18, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 27, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 14, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 30, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 13, 2012Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 18, 2012, and March 18, 2015.
Current status: Good article


Untitled[edit]

A custom index of the archives for the Terri Schiavo page has been created at Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives with a general description of each archive's contents.

other neurologists (removed from "initial medical" paragraph)[edit]

Other neurologists—Drs. Jeffery M. Karp, James H. Barnhill, and Thomas H. Harrison—also examined Terri over the years and made the same diagnosis; they also shared an opinion about her very poor chances for recovery. Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and expert on coma and unconsciousness, testified in 2005 that nothing in the medical records suggested disagreement among Terri’s physicians about the underlying diagnosis.[1]

  1. ^ Cranford, Ronald (2005-07-01). "Facts, Lies, & Videotapes: The Permanent Vegetative State and the Sad Case of Terri Schiavo". J Law Med Ethics. Retrieved 2006-01-17. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help);33(2):363-71

Lead section rewrite[edit]

I am working on a rewrite of the lead section of this article from scratch. I am working on it at User:Pages777/Terri Schiavo case lead. Please collaborate with me at that page for about a week (until July 30, 2021) and then we will engage in consensus building and hopefully replace the current lead. I think that the main advantage of my version is that the three paragraphs have a coherent train of thought.--Pages777 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe someone who thinks an eating disorder makes you a "stupid, destructive and evil person" who deserves to experience severe health consequences of that illness is a prime candidate for rewriting this article? Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would benefit from taking the existing advice from 7-8 July in the article history where multiple users already highlighted the WP:POV and MOS:EDITORIAL language in your preferred lead, like "as is typical", "endured wave after wave", "memorialized his fidelity", etc. I fail to see how your proposed revisions improve the current lead, notwithstanding the unconvincing assertion of a "right to lifer" bias. --Scuoise (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

@Elizium23, why did you revert the edit? This is how I know it in English grammar. "Low" in the original sentence acts as a noun. Therefore, it cannot have an adverb modifying it. Adverbs only modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs as far as I know. It also would make "an" obsolete as what follows it isn't a noun or noun phrase. My revision changes "low" to an adjective and therefore, having "abnormally" before it makes it grammatically correct and does not at all affect the original message. Why then would you revert it? — Python Drink (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"low" was not a noun, it was an adjective, and your change messes up the flow. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23, now I feel stupid; you're actually right. My brain just didn't notice the figures. — Python Drink (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is a relief bill?[edit]

On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill

what is a relief bill? Marnanel (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]