Talk:Terri Schiavo case

The archives for the Terri Schiavo page may be found here:

• Talk:Terri Schiavo/archives (currently 40 archives)
• Peer review 1
• Peer review 2

"at weekends" v. "on weekends"

Isn't "on weekends" the American usage? patsw 16:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I apologize. Anyway, I've changed it to "on Sundays", since that's what's in the transcript. I think "on" is definitely right for days of the week. Also, I originally left the spelling of "omlette" as it is in the transcript, because I thought it might be an American spelling, but I've looked it up in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and it seems to be "omelette", which is also the British spelling. So I've now changed it. Feel free to change back if I'm wrong about anything. I'm not supposed to be here at all – I'm just taking a tiny break from my studies. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

gallon a day

This is getting absurd. There are three places in the testimony where Michael mentions Terri drinking a gallon of iced tea a day. The first one appears to show Michael talking about a specific time he saw her drink a gallon of iced tea. He ends that answer with I don't know what she did any other time when I didn't see her. That is not the same as "I don't know what she did any other time". i.e. this does not imply that this was the only time that he saw her drink like this, and it takes a biased reader to focus on that testimony and ignore the rest of teh testimony. In two other sections of teh testimony, it becomes clear that Michaels says "a gallon a day". i.e. it wasn't a gallon once in a lifetime. and it wasn't even qualified with "a gallon every Sunday". He says flat out "a gallon a day" at two different points in testimony. There is no justification for trying to convert this into anything other than "a gallon a day". FuelWagon 19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

16 A. I noticed she would consume a large amount of

17 iced tea. She would consume close to a gallon of it in

18 one day.

19 Q. Was that like everyday or just once in a while?

20 A. I seen her do it on my day off on Sunday. I spent

21 two or three hours with her during the evening with her and

22 she had a couple glasses of iced tea then. I don't know

23 what she did any other time when I didn't see her.

12 Q. Okay. Do you recall them asking you anything

13 about her intake of fluids, asking you anything about her

14 intake of fluids?

15 A. Dr. Shah mentioned to me if Terry drank a lot of

16 coffee, and I said, no, she did drink a lot of iced tea and

17 that was --

18 Q. And you told him the same thing you told us --

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. -- about the gallon a day?

21 A. Yes, she drank close to a gallon a day.

19 Q. You mentioned the fact that she drank a lot of

20 iced tea after she came to Florida; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. About a gallon a day?

23 A. Estimating a gallon a day.

If she drank a gallon of iced tea a day. So what? A human being drinks one to two gallons of something everyday. 128 ounces = 8 pints = 4 quarts in a gallon. 1 gallon = 3.785 liters.

What's absurd is the effort to support the discredited death by iced tea theory in the article. Otherwise healthy 26 year old women who are not binging and purging (or fasting) -- but drink a gallon of iced tea daily do not have near-fatal potsassium imbalances. Terri's cause of death was undetermined. To remind the reader:

"I was looking for everything I could," Thogmartin said. "And it just wasn't there. I was grasping at straws."

Thogmartin labeled the official cause of Schiavo's death as complications from her brain injury. But the manner of her death - the cause of the brain injury - he listed as "undetermined". patsw 00:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

number of edits

I decided to read through the article start to finish. I was sort of hoping I'd find some information that could easily be cut. I didn't. I did, however, run into a number of copyedit issues, verb tense things, use of Mr. Schiavo instead of Michael, and a couple of sentences that acted like speed bumps. I cleaned them up. FuelWagon 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Schiavo" (period) should be used for Theresa Schiavo. If we use the last name with her, "Mr. Schiavo" actually makes sense in place of Michael. "What do the newspapers use?" Last names--typically (though they try not to) they privilege the male. John Smith is simply "Smith" and Mary Smith is "Mrs. Smith." In this case, the article is (can we agree on this ;) about Terri Schiavo. Thus she is "Schiavo" and her husband is "Mr. Schiavo." Obviously in particular contexts his first name makes more sense, but I would suggest this nomenclature in general. Marskell 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A couple months ago, there was a huge debate over whether to say "Terri" or "Schiavo" when speaking of "Terri Schiavo". Some thought "Schiavo" was impersonal, but eventually it was decided to be more encyclopedic. For now, I just changed the two "Mr. Schiavo's" to "Michael" so the article would be consistent with the rest of the article. I'm not sure what the wikipedia guidelines are for this. I don't think it ever got mentioned on the Featured Article request, but then there were bigger issues. And I don't know if they would be "guidelines" or "policy". Personally I think it would be rather confusing if the article said "Schiavo" for Terri and "Mr. Schiavo" for Michael, but that's just me. FuelWagon 02:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should use first names when possible to avoid confusion. We're not trying to meet intangible guidelines; We are trying to make an article easily understood by the Joe Average citizen.--GordonWatts 03:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Think of the reader. The usual encyclopedic style gets in the way of comprehending to whom a Schiavo reference refers. Do articles on Bill and Hillary refer to the two of them uniformly as "Clinton" or do they use first names or other tags to disambiguate them? patsw 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Do articles on Bill and Hillary refer to the two of them uniformly as "Clinton" or do they use first names or other tags to disambiguate them?" They use first names. Whomever wrote those article was normal, and we should be too!--GordonWatts 05:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No they don't use first names. Both (particularly Bill Clinton) simply use "Clinton." At points early in the page on Hillary Clinton "Rodham" or "Rodham-Clinton" are used. "Normal" is last name. Use the first (or full name) where confusion is obvious. Use the last otherwise. Marskell 12:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I regret citing the Clinton's as an example. Hillary Clinton's use of Rodham or Rodham-Clinton. whatever her motivation, does not have a parallel in the Schiavo case. I return to my main point and the point that others raised: The usage of last names in encyclopedic but in the Schiavo article, to apply such a rule strictly, fills the article with difficulty for the reader in disambiguating to whom a Schiavo reference refers. patsw 13:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"The usage of last names in encyclopedic but in the Schiavo article..." Don't you mean "is" encyclopedic? "but in the Schiavo article, to apply such a rule strictly, fills the article with difficulty for the reader in disambiguating to whom a Schiavo reference refers." I can see Marskell's point, but I agree with Pat here: While we might get away with last names sometimes (usually, actually!), when there is ambiguity, I say use "Mr. Schiavo" or "Mrs. Schiavo" -just like when we're talking about them in a casual conversation -or, perhaps, like "Terri" and "Michael." That would work too. "Schiavo." Huh? "Which" Schiavo? PS: In 2050, and even now days in 2005, I think there are a lot of folk unfamiliar with this case, so disambiguation is my personal preference. That's my two cents' worth.--GordonWatts 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying never use a first name only that the default choice should be last name if there is no obvious confusion. Schiavo remained in a coma..., Schiavo was cremeated... etc. No one is going to suspect we're talking about her husband. Marskell 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Common sense applies: An example of possible ambiguity Schiavo chose the inscription for the memorial. We cannot presume that the reader is so familiar with the case that he or she is going to effortlessly disambiguate the references. I'm thinking about the readability of this article to readers in 2050 not 2005. patsw 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Common sense applies. Yes. Common sense tells me that in the case of "Schiavo was cremated" there is absolutely no ambiguity, while "Her husband," "Michael" or "Mr. Schiavo" is fine for "...chose the inscription." Marskell 17:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

...in the case of "Schiavo was cremated"... -- OK, but someday, Michael may be cremated, and then what will readers think? Will they know who is who then? Let's think of future generations.--GordonWatts 03:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we assuming future readers are going to drop 20 or 30 IQ points? I mean honestly, who the hell is going to read this article, arrive at the memorial and decide we're talking about her husband? Marskell 08:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Are we assuming future readers are going to drop 20 or 30 IQ points?" Au contraire, SEÑOR Marskell: Actually, that sort of thing happens quite frequently in history: Look at declining SAT scores, increasing crime and divorce, and consider that future generations might not only be less familiar with this topic, but also, they may jump into the article mid-stream, and the husband may someday be cremated. (Thus, a new reader might ask "which Schiavo is being discussed here?") which makes us bad scribes if we don't make the image plain for all to see. In fact, we don't have to look far for ignorant citizens: Recently, a news anchor in my area said that I didn't have legal standing to bring a habeas plea -in the face of recent court rulings affirming the "next friend" rights -and in the face of the court's refusal to dismiss my case for well over a year. Also, let's not forget that many people -even recently -thought Terri was hooked up to all kinds of life support (e.g., heart-lung machines, ventilators, etc.). What uninformed boobs! Can you say "stupid?" We must be good scribes and history recorders -good story tellers -since the story is true history: We must never forget.--GordonWatts 00:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For this particular example I simply think you're wrong. A person who could possibly, looking at a page entitled Terri Schiavo, with a pic of her gravesite in the memorial, read that section as referring to her husband wouldn't have the intelligence to boot a search engine let alone make their way to a specific page. Indeed, I'd have to guess this hypothetical future reader is actually illiterate. I mean really.

"A person who could possibly, looking at a page entitled Terri Schiavo, with a pic of her gravesite in the memorial, read that section as referring to her husband wouldn't have the intelligence to boot a search engine let alone make their way to a specific page." You are probably right most of the times, but every once in a while, anyone gets confused a little over one sentence or something. For example, some woman left a message on my answering machine for my mother (who lives with me and pop) regarding a cat which was treated at her vet clinic, and neither I nor my mother could fully understand all that the woman said. Sometimes the written word can be a tad confusing -probably less often, we hope.--GordonWatts 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want, use the full name Theresa Schiavo. After all we could be referring to Terri Summers, Terri Dwyer or Terry Fox... Musn't confuse people.

Also, crime rates aren't increasing. Don't believe the hype ;). Marskell 10:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Also, crime rates aren't increasing. Don't believe the hype ;)." You might be right, and, if so, i think people have always been somewhat dishonest when the going gets tough. We humans...--GordonWatts 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd support "Schiavo" for Terri Schiavo because it is encyclopedic, and then "Michael" for Michael Schiavo because it is clearly unambiguous. I wouldn't want to see the article go to "Terri Schiavo", because it is both unencyclopedic and cumbersome at times. The best we can hope for is to be as close to the rules for "encyclopedic", to be consistent, and to be unambiguous. "Schiavo" for Terri and "Michael" for her husband seems the best we can do. FuelWagon 02:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"I'd support "Schiavo" for Terri Schiavo because it is encyclopedic, and then "Michael" for Michael Schiavo because it is clearly unambiguous..."Schiavo" for Terri and "Michael" for her husband seems the best we can do." Well, if it's consistent, then it might be OK in this article..--GordonWatts 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that anytime you see the word "Schiavo" in the Terri Schiavo article is in reference to Terri. I had recently removed a couple of references to "Mr. Schiavo" and replaced them with "Michael" or "her husband" or some such thing. There shouldn't be any occurrences of "Mr. Schiavo" in the article.(of course, I'm saying this without doing a search, and will likely be proved wrong as soon as I hit "save page") FuelWagon 05:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong at the time. there were 15 occurrences of "Mr. Schiavo". I have now changed the article so that all occurrences of "Mr. Schiavo" have been changed to "Michael". Will read it in the morning to see what it sounds like. FuelWagon 05:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Transferred from Talk:Euthanasia

[ PJTraill 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) I have transferred this largely unsigned section here to clean up the Talk:Euthanasia. Do what you will with it! ]

The Terri Schiavo case was not euthanasia, it was abstention. Simply stopping feeding a comatose patient is not the same es euthanasia and has been legal for years in many countries. Caesarion 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This can be termed passive euthanasia, as described in the Euthanasia article. Proto 11:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, removing a feeding tube is "passive" whereas making a lethal injection is "active". Why is removing a tube not considered active? This is an idiocy! (Obviously, you are right, Caesarion, that the Schiavo case was considered passive euthanasia and therefore allowed in the US, but I want to point that the law which allows letting someone die of thirst and/or hunger while forbidding a lethal injection is idiotic and monstrous).

I don't see how this is not a case of euthanasia... Michael Schiavo was the legal guardian of Terri, but his main motive of removing the feeding tube and letting Terri Schiavo die was to collect her insurance money and go have a happy life with his girlfriend. In my mind... Michael Schiavo should be killed for what he did... because Terri was showing major signs of recovery and Michael was oblivious to the fact. Read Silent Witness : The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death by Mark Fuhrman to get the story nobody else will tell you about this tragedy and then you will see where I'm coming from.

Why unsigned? Check out Mark Fuhrman if you don't already have an opinion on him PJTraill 15:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do we need this tirade here? Marskell 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

We probably don't — but we certainly don't need it under euthanasia! I just didn't feel ready to scrap it completely. PJTraill 15:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless it's a personal attack or nonsense you actually shouldn't remove anything from Talk pages. Yes, people wander off on tangents but they're ultimately allowed to. Archive if you feel the thread is dead or unneeded. Marskell 15:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing like beating a dead freaking horse here. The Terri Schiavo case was not euthanasia, or anything like euthanasia. Euthanasia is illegal in the US. The Terri Schiavo case was the refusal of medical care by Terri Schiavo, which any person has the right to do. The paramedics can show up at your house, but they can't make you go to the hospital. If you get to the hospital, the doctors can examine you and tell you what's wrong and what they want to do to you, but you get to decide if you'll let them cut you open. Life support is the same thing, refusal of medical treatment, the only difference is that decisions about refusing life support either have to be made ahead of time via a living will or after the patient becomes terminal/unconscious/unresponsive must be determined by the next of kin and/or the courts. With Terri, she became unable to answer questions about terminating life support after her collapse, and it was left to the next of kin to decide, which was challenged by her parents, and was then decided by the courts. The courts found that Terri had made reliable statements that she would not have wanted to be kept alive on a machine with no hope of recovery. Therefore they found that Terri would have wnated to refuse medical treatment. This is not a case about euthanasia except by those who would also like to call it a case of murder. FuelWagon 01:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Advocates of euthanasia cite the case of Terri Schiavo as precedent because of the parallels it has to a involuntary euthanasia scenario:

1. substituted judgment (i.e. what Michael wants is regarded as what Terri wanted -- in the absence of a signed, witnessed, written declaration by Terri of her medical choices) true in many euthanasia cases

2. Terri was not otherwise at risk of death. true in many euthanasia cases

3. A court order superceded the state's duty to feed and hydrate Terri and removed her nutrition and hydration to directly cause Terri's death. the result euthanasia advocates want

Since as FuelWagon correctly points out it was not illegal, euthanasia advocates want to demonstrate that the Schiavo case matches their own cases very closely and it therefore has become legal according to this Schiavo precedent. Without a declaration written by the patient and in the possession of the hospital to "keep the tube in", the next of kin will have the unquestioned power to take the tube out because of this Schiavo precedent. One can quibble if this is euthanasia or not, but the result achieved is the same. patsw 04:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. The people who cry about "proxy judgements" are the same people who quote Iyer's "when is that bitch gonna die" as if it were truth rather than planted fiction. Michael didn't proxy for Terri, the courts did. ANd the courts found that Terri had made reliable statements that she wouldn't want to be kept alive on a machine with no hope of recovery. Terri had been diagnosed PVS by 4 neurologists for 8 years before the Schindlers finally challenged that diagnosis, and they only did that after it becahem their only remaining court challenge possible. They were gaming the system.

The same people who love the word "euthanasia" then invoke their own version of "hope" in response to Terri's request that she not be kept on a machine with "no hope of recovery". They invoke magical thinking that maybe tomorrow will bring a medical breakthrough. They invoke voodoo logic that says maybe tomorrow will bring a new therapy that will help Terri get better. They invoke Tinkerbell like logic that asks everyone to just wish really hard and maybe she'll be better tomorrow. By denying the medical community's definition of "hope of recovery", by ignoring the fact that Terri had been suspended in 15 years of the very hell that she had SPECIFICALLY STATED she would never want to be trapped in, by ignoring the reality that she had no actual hope of recovery, and by invoking a non-existent, magical, miracle, voodoo-style "hope" of recovery (one that has absolutely no empirical basis in reality), by invoking THAT sense of "hope", these believers in Tinkerbell argue that there is always "hope" and therefore Terri should be kept alive, at all costs, no matter the price, no matter what she had requested.

Terri had no hope of recovery. 15 years in a PVS with no responses that ever occurred outside of what could be considered random responses. diagnosis by 8 different neurologists over the course of 15 years, all saying she is PVS with no hope of recovery. And still, magical thinking lives on, arguing that there is always "hope". Here's the reality-check for all you believers in Tinkerbell: Terri had previously said she would not want to be kept on a machine with no hope of recovery. She had spent 15 years suspended in that very hell she specifically stated she did not want to be trapped in. 8 doctors examined her and said she had no medically known hope of recovery. The courts examined witnesses and their testimony and found that Terri had made reliable statements that she would want to refuse medical treatement in these circumstances. Using the fact of no living will as a "technicality" to keep her in this special form of suspended hell and ignoring her previous statements saying she wouldn't want to be kept on a machine takes a special form of egomania. To argue that someone else knows whats better for Terri, in spite of her own wishes, is egomania.

To take the fullfillment of what was ultimately Terri's wish to refuse medical treatment in this situation and call it "euthanasia" for your own political and religious goals is again an act of ego, of self-inflated pride. This wasn't euthanasia. Terri didn't have a living will. But she had made clear statements that thankfully were allowed to be recognized by the courts and to fulfill her choices in how she would have wanted to live and how she would NOT have wanted to live. It was HER choice to refuse medical treatment. And it is not our position to second guess her request, but to honor it. FuelWagon 05:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon,

you seem to forget that whether this was Terri's wish is exactly one of the debated issues, as she had no living will. Now the court found it to be that way and if you want to base yourself solely on procedural ground, you're free to do so. Others doubt the court findings and doubt that Michael was telling the truth. And they had and have good reasons for it. You might disagree but don't go around calling names and detecting sinister motives. In the end, neither you nor me know what Terri had said years ago, what she meant by that in relation to her subsequent situation (which she didn't foresee in detail) and what she wanted at the time she was "disconnected".

There were other issues involved: the state she was in (PVS or not) and the ramifications of PVS (can she recover or not), the nature of te feeding (is this medical treatment or basic care), but in the end it boils down to Terri's choice and if I had clear evidence of what that would be (not that my voice matters much in this) I wouldn't second guess it. I might not like it, but I would have to accept it as her choice. But this is the point - we don't know.

Is this dicussion relevant to any current editing issue? Str1977 11:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bread/Host

Perhaps someone should go over to the Holy communion and add mention that "bread" is heretical, and that "host" is the preferred wording. As for the article, you can call it "host" for all I care, but I see no reason not to have a parenthetical to explain that it is consecrated bread, unless you're saying that the entire Holy communion article is heretical for even using the word "bread". FuelWagon 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm not particularly happy with the article on Holy Communion, and I shall certainly take another look at it some time. However, that article is on the Eucharist in various Christian churches – not just Catholic and Orthodox, so it's perfectly appropriate to use the word bread in some cases, since many denominations do not have, or believe they have, transubstantiation. Many nominal Catholic deny the Real Presence, casually referring to the Eucharist a "bread", but it is contrary to the official teaching of the Church. There would, of course, be a POV problem if a Catholic edited the article to say that a small piece of the Precious Body of Christ could not be offered. I was the one who originally edited that section, back in April, and I deliberately chose language that would not deny Catholic teaching, but that would not try to affirm it either. Before that, it had just said bread and wine. Anyway, I have now linked the word host, so I think that should provide all the help that a reader ignorant of Catholic terminology would require. Regardless of what the Wikipedia article on the Eucharist says, Terri was a Catholic, and the official teaching of the Catholic Church does not refer to the consecrated host as "bread". I'm not trying to affirm that transubstantiation really happens in this article; I'm just trying to make sure that it isn't denied either. And I can guarantee that the two priests who ministered to Terri – Fr Pavone and Monsignor Malinowski – would not refer to it as bread! Let's respect Terri's religion, shall we? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 02:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I just looked again, and I stand corrected. It isn't "consecrated bread", it's "altar bread" until it is consecrated with the Words of Institution, "This is my body", at which point the preferred term is then "host". Although one could argue that it is technically "consecrated alter bread". Actually, if it wasn't offered to Terri, then the words "this is my body" weren't likely spoken, in which case it wasn't consecrated, and therefore it would still be "alter bread". FuelWagon 03:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment has me confused. Are you suggesting that the priest brought along an unconsecrated altar bread to Terri with the intention of saying "This is My Body" before giving it to her? And that since he found her tongue too dry, he didn't say those words, but just put the piece of bread back in his pocket? Under no circumstances is a priest ever, ever, ever allowed to consecrate the bread and wine outside of Mass. At Mass, the priest often consecrates more hosts than are needed for Holy Communion. Those which are left are placed in a tabernacle, brought to the sick, distributed at later Masses, and sometimes exposed for adoration and Benediction. He doesn't carry pieces of bread around with him with the intention of saying "This is My Body" before administering them. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When my wife Heidi was administered the "Sacrament of Healing" (as she was close to death) the priest said "This is My Body" and then touched the "Host" or bread and then touched Heidi's lips with the same finger. The "Host" may well have been consecrated during a prior Mass, I don't know. I thought he was consecrating it at the time. I didn't ask, nor do I care. Heidi survived and as to when and where the exchange from "bread" to "Host" happened is for ceremonial purposes. If you really think that God cares for ceremony then that's your God, and not mine. --hydnjo talk 21:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the ceremony is priest takes "alter bread", says "this is my body", which consecrates the alter bread with the Words of Institution, turning it into host by Transubstantiation, and gives it to the worshipper. I don't think priests invoke the words of institution right after the alter bread is made and keep the body of Christ warehoused in the back room. In any event, I don't see any problem with putting "host (consecrated alter bread)" in the article. A parenthetical explaining what "host" is should qualify as being encyclopedic. FuelWagon 21:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The ceremonial Transubstantiation is after all, ceremony. Not many really believe that there is a transmutation. For those that hold otherwise well, then that's their belief. Call it what you will, it's still bread. Alter bread? C'mon, like the genesis of a particular piece of bread ordains it for higher powers! --hydnjo talk 22:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like "sacramental wine". After all, ordinary wine couldn't be expected to ...well you know what I mean. --hydnjo talk 23:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So, lets review: a "Host" must come from "alter bread". Regular bread must first become "alter bread" so as to qualify for becomming a "Host". Do I have it right so far? --hydnjo talk 23:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What we really need to do is include as many details of Catholic liturgy, wherever and whenever we can, as the server allows. As we all know, this is really short on details. Jeepers, it's just above a stub! Honestly, let's argue til we're blue in the face on this one because all I want is more K added to this article! Marskell 23:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine. What's "K" ? --hydnjo talk 23:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

K is kilobytes. It was, I suppose, a lame attempt at an inside-page-joke. This article has been many "K" overweight for a while and, you know, here we are reverting over a word. Marskell 00:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

(o)K, gotit. Understand. Hey, don't worry about it. When the time is right to spin-off some sections you'll know. You're right about overweight, maybe it is time. --hydnjo talk 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sections have been spun-off. TS is actually a category. Sections have also been spun back into the article with much angst. I'm uncertain about your implication otherwise. Marskell 00:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No implication at all. I just stumbled here by "Random article". The article was fascinating and so I went on to this talk page to feel the vibes. This, also was fascinating so, I made a comment or two reflecting my own views. No harm intended nor felt. Just passing by and giving an offhand perspective from my own POV. If youl'd like more well then you have my address don't you. --hydnjo talk 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article or comment here. If you have a better sentence than the one debated, insert it. Marskell 01:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't feel free to edit (the article) as I am not at all familiar with the debate. My comments were only directed to some of the chatter on the talk page. The article is, well... substantial. I noted a good and strong neutrality with an extremely controversial subject. As well done as could be done I'd say.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 01:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And, my rv of 24.170.41.25's edits were because they seemed to be from that user's POV and didn't seem to be contributing. Go ahead and put them back in if you feel that they are helpful. --hydnjo talk 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't recounting the ceremony to suggest that it be included in the article. I was describing the ceremony to explain why I think that a three-word parenthetical could be added after the word "host" that said "(consecrated alter bread)" for those not familiar with the Catholic ceremony. Ann suggested it was sacriligeous to call it bread, I think a review of the various articles I mentioned in describing the ceremony would show that "(consecrated alter bread)" at least qualifies as encyclopedic wording. FuelWagon 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK then, FWIW I agree. Sorry that I misunderstood and got somewhat carried away. --hydnjo talk 03:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, I'm glad you alerted me to problems in the Holy Communion article. I'm now working on them. The point is that according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, regardless of what you or I or patsw or hydnjo may think, once the consecration has taken place, it is not bread, it is the Body of Christ. I am not trying to get that put into the article, as it is POV; neither should anyone try to put in the article that it is bread, since that would also be POV. The article has had the word "host" since April, and nobody made any objections. I recall that at the time of mediation, you said that you had reread the whole article, and you obviously didn't think that was worth changing then. The word "host" is NPOV, as it can be used by Catholics without violating their beliefs, and can be used by atheists without pretending to believe in something they find ridiculous.

With regard to the necessity of putting in some clarification after the word host, it is for that very reason that the word host has been wikified. Words and phrases in the article that might require some specialist knowledge in order to understand include defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and thalamic stimulator. I imagine that all of those examples would be less comprehensible to the ordinary man in the street than the word "host", especially in the context in which it is presented. There are many other examples; none of them has an explanation given after it. One important reason for wikifying, as far as I know, is so that the reader can click on anything that he wants to find out more about.

I'm amazed that you would continue to argue the case about when the host is consecrated, when you admit that you don't actually know. If you look at my user page, you'll probably guess that I'm a practising Catholic. I do know when the hosts are consecrated. They are consecrated at Mass and may never, under any circumstances, be consecrated outside of Mass. I never said that priests invoke the Words of Institution right after the altar bread is made, still less that they "keep the body of Christ warehoused in the back room". There is no reason to think that the Mass is said right after the altar bread is made; it would usually be a few days later. If there are any hosts left over after Mass, they are kept in a tabernacle. They can be distributed at the next Mass; some communicants receive hosts directly from the altar, and consecrated ten minutes before; others receive hosts from the tabernacle, consecrated the day before, or even earlier. A consecrated host is sometimes displayed in a monstrance, for adoration. Sometimes hosts are placed in a pyx and brought to the sick, either by the priest who consecrated them on an earlier occasion, or by a lay extraordinary minister, who would not be capable of validly consecrating them. Years ago, when a priest came to visit a dying person, he was led to the sick room in complete silence, by a person carrying a lighted candle, out of reverence for that which he was carrying. If you would like to read any Vatican documents on the subject, I'm happy to help you to locate some relevant ones. Otherwise, perhaps you'd be happy just to take my word for it.

And on a final note, I understand that every version of the page is stored in the history. That presumably takes up server space and costs money. I think, therefore, that we should stick to the point of how the article should be worded, rather than get into debates as to whether or not God cares for ceremony, or whether or not transubstantiation really takes place. I'm delighted to hear that your wife recovered, hydnjo. By the way, it's much more likely that the priest said, "The Body of Christ"; that is what they say when administering Holy Communion. They say "This is My Body" at the moment of consecration. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You are exactly right Ann, the priest did say "(The) Body of Christ". Sorry about the misquote, I should have remembered that on my own. --hydnjo talk 16:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"...less comprehensible to the ordinary man in the street..." The American Idiom is "the man on the street" (preposition "on") --However, don't feel bad: English has many irregular variations and few rules -making English difficult for even for native speakers like yourself and myself! English is HARD for people, especially non-native speakers --unlike Spanish, in which spelling and pronunciation always follow strict rules. (A Greek friend often said stuff like "Would you like to go at the store with me?" Instead of TO the store, lol...) ---Lastly, I got a job at a guard company (unarmed, class "D" security job for a local college and similar types businesses), so everybody, please don't delete too much of news coverage about me when I am gone for a while. Thx.--GordonWatts 23:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

First, if you're going to keep using the argument that no one complained until now as a way of arguing that it was "fine" for the months up until now, then you should petition wikipedia to permanently lock the article. Excepting that, stuff comes up in the article as it is combed through. It is the POV of the catholic church to call it "host", but it is the POV of non-catholics to refer to it as "consecrated alter bread". I don't think adding a parenthetical would be violating any wikipedia policy, nor should it be taken as a sign of sacrilige. FuelWagon 02:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, FuelWagon, the POV of Catholics is to call it the "Body of Christ". The POV of non-Catholics is to call it "bread" (unless, of course, we're talking about Eastern Orthodox Christians, or a very small minority of Protestants). The word "host" is perfectly neutral, because it can be used by both without violation of any beliefs that may be held. To say that "consecrated alter [sic.] bread" is the POV of non-catholics is just not true. That particular combination of words is almost unknown. It is definitely not the POV of non-catholics. I would guess that you never used it in your life until this week. Google give 11 results for "consecrated altar bread", 9,840 for "communion host", and 43,700 for "consecrated host".

You haven't explained why it has suddenly become necessary to put these extra three words in, when the word is already wikified. You haven't tried to put in a little explanation after defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or thalamic stimulator. Why does the wikilink suffice for them and not for host?

Perhaps the reason for your persistence is not that you think an explanation is so essential (when it isn't for the items I've just mentioned), and that having a wikilink doesn't help (but does for those other items)? Perhaps it's that you think the use of the word "host" implies that transubstantiation really does take place? If that is the case, I can assure you that catholics do talk about "unconsecrated" hosts. (We don't, of course, talk about the "unconsecrated Body of Christ"; that would be a contradiction, and cannot be found on Google. I remember going into the sacristy before Mass a few years ago, to tell the priest, "I've just found a host, but I don't know if it's been consecrated or not". Google gives 228 hits for "unconsecrated host" (and 242 for "unconsecrated hosts"); even St Thomas Aquinas used that term [1]. If you're basing your belief that it should be called "consecrated altar bread" on the contents of the host article (as seems likely from your post to this section at 03:38, 26 October), please understand that that article was written by the same person (me) who is now arguing that "host" is appropriate in the Terri Schiavo article, that it is by no means complete yet, and that the claim therein that hosts are more properly called "altar breads" before consecration is based on the fact the "host" means "victim" – the one who is offered in a sacrifice. At Mass, Jesus is offered to the Father, according to Catholic POV. The priest does not offer the host until after the consecration, so it becomes a victim (something offered in sacrifice) at that moment. Now, if we're wrong about transubstantiation, then it's not the Body of Christ, but it's still a host, because it's still offered in sacrifice to God (if there is a God) in the belief (whether erroneous or not) that it has become the Body of his Son.

Once again, host is neutral, because it doesn't suggest that it is the Body of Christ or that it's only bread. The word is used by Catholics and non-Catholics when talking about a Catholic liturgy. It's not a particularly unknown word. I'm sure you knew what it meant at the time that it was put into the article (13 April), and at the time that you told Ed you had just re-read the whole article and thought it was fine (some time in June). And your comments above ("if it wasn't offered to Terri, then the words "this is my body" weren't likely spoken, in which case it wasn't consecrated") show that you're extremely unfamiliar with Catholic practices and beliefs, so I think if you knew what "host" meant, then most of the people who read the article will also know. In the unlikely case that someone doesn't know, there's a wikilink. You don't seem to want to insert explanations in brackets for other, more technical terms in the article. And, if you didn't object to "host" for over six months (until you found that I wanted it), it can't be so important to you that you are obliged in principle to get into an edit war. Isn't it time to drop this and to get on with editing and discussing the rest of the article? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 06:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, once again, this is a wiki and changes can occur over time. That no one edited the last rites section does not mean that everyone approved of it. Perhaps you'll recall some rather large edit wars over topics other than whether to call it "host". Perhaps not. Anyway, with attention drawn to it, "host" is a catholic term. It means nothing to non-catholics. A person unfamiliar with the ceremony would have absolutely no idea what a "host" is. But they would have an idea of what "unconsecrated alter bread" might be. I used that phrasing because it is used multiple times in the other articles I mentioned previously, such as holy communion, host, etc. So, unless you can explain how it would be non-encyclopedic to explain to non-catholics that "host" means "unconsecrated alter bread", the phrase should stay in the article. And once again, arguments about it being there for months don't fly. FuelWagon 14:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we just say "a small piece of a host wafer was unable to..." Wafer referring to shape, more or less, rather than substance. I must say it does seem silly to have to unpack this where the link usually suffices. I do not, however, think it especially relevant that TS or another Catholic finds anything but "host" heretical. I don't suppose we place (PBUH) after every mention of the Prophet Mohammed though a billion odd people wouldn't consider doing otherwise. Marskell 15:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, this is getting to be ridiculous. You have just put in that it was "unconsecrated [sic] alter [sic] bread". Quite apart from the spelling, the host that the priest brought with him had been consecrated, as I have tried, patiently, to explain to you. Your claim that that you're using it because it's used "multiple times" in the article on Holy Communion may convince a casual reader of this page who doesn't take the time to look at the articles in question; but as far as I can see from checking those articles, it is completely false, making it difficult for me to "assume good faith". For you to be sincere in saying that, you would have to have read the articles and imagined that you saw it there. The article on Holy Communion does not have "altar bread" anywhere, either with your spelling or with the correct one. (I checked its recent history as well, in case you looked on a different date.) I am quite shocked. Can you explain why you said that? Are you so desperate to have "bread" put into the article, knowing that it creates a problem for believing Catholics, that you're prepared to stoop to making false claims, or is it really an honest error – that you read the article and thought that you saw it "multiple times"? As for the article on host – "altar breads" appears once. "Consecrated altar breads" does not appear", neither does "unconsecrated altar breads". The normal context in which "altar breads" is used would be in information leaflets about particular orders of nuns, and how they make altar breads for a living. Even then, the word "host" is often used. If you don't know the word – and you haven't said you don't – that doesn't prove that it's not well known. It's rather obvious that you're unfamiliar with Catholicism – your remarks about suggesting that unconsecrated hosts are brought to dying people and consecrated in front of them, and your repeated use of "unconsecrated" when you mean "consecrated" bear witness to that. Therefore, if there is something in the article that needs to be reworded for clarity, you shouldn't be the one to carry out the task.

If the word "host" were POV, I could understand your objection. You're objecting because you say people mightn't know what host means. That's why, although I think most people would know what it means, I took the trouble of writing a short article on "host", since the one on Holy Communion is too long for someone who just wants a quick explanation of that word. That's why there's a wikilink.

Before you start reverting again, and putting in inaccuracies about "UNconsecrated alter breads", I'd like to know three things:

• Why is a wikilink not sufficient for host if it's sufficient for defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, or thalamic stimulator, viaticum, and lots of other terms?
• If you think a wikilink isn't sufficient and an explanation has to appear in the actual article, why are you making no attempt to insert explanations after the other terms I mentioned?
• Why did you say that the term "unconsecrated alter bread" (by which you presumably meant "consecrated altar bread" is "used multiple times in [the articles on] holy communion, host"?

I hope you will have some explanation for that claim. But even if you have, I can assure you that "host" is more common among Catholics and non Catholics than "altar bread". The use of that word does not affirm or deny Catholic doctrine, so it is not POV. If it's a question of clarity, I can't see that "host" is any more unclear than that other, wikified, but unexplained terms in the article. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

All the other examples you provide are medical terms in a medical context, and how they are used in the article can point to what they mean. medical terms in a medical context. The word "host" means absolutely nothing to someone not familiar with the religious cermony and would have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about explaining a religious term, "host", with a parenthetical using three secular terms, "consecrated alter bread". Unless you can explain to me how that is not encyclopedic, it goes in. Your only real reason is that "consecrated alter bread" is sacriligious or some such thing. But that doesn't qualify as non-encyclopedic. All the other arguments are non-sequitors. FuelWagon 18:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

So, um, "host wafer?" Marskell 15:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann's editing is correct and I think the editing obsession that started with this anon editor a week ago is petty, stupid, inconsequential, and pointless. It's seems now just to be bullying against Ann. Basically the original wording of this section was accuarate and verifiable in its long-standing form. patsw 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I added wafer given no argument not to. FW, "consecrated altar bread" arguably just adds confusion. Readers can follow the link. And now they know it's a wafer. Marskell 12:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wafer is fine by me. I was going with "unconsecrated alter bread" because Ann indicated that Catholics call it "alter bread" before it is consecrated and that Catholics prefer to call it "host" after it is consecrated, therefore, "unconsecrated alter bread" was an attempt to be as respectful of the religious point of view as possible but still explain it in a secular point of view for the noncatholics. But "wafer" works for me too. FuelWagon 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The terms "wafer", "cookie", and "cracker" (as well as the original "bread") are all offensive to Catholics. The wording before anon's edit of 25 October 2005 [2] adding "bread,otherwise known as" was somehow acceptable. Ann's editing is correct and I urge you to back down from this senseless edit war. A reader who doesn't know what Holy Communion is can click the link. patsw 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a catholic indoctrination. A term such as "host" that only means something to those familiary with the catholic ceremony can be explained in secular terms to those not familiar and still remain encyclopedic. Some editors have mistakenly adopted the position that "Catholic" somehow defines what is and is not acceptable in wikipedia, or that what is offensive to one particular religion somehow defines either policy or what is acceptable content. Find a secular term to define this, "wafer" or "consecrated alter bread" or whatever that will explain it to those not familiar with the Catholic lingo, or I will. FuelWagon 04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It was an attempt at a compromise. The fact that Catholics find it offensive has no bearing on whether we should use it. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact. I really could care less about whether it just stays as host but if it's going to go round and round with reverts at least provide some suggestion as to how to describe it's corporeal form. Marskell 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me soften that slightly: all other things being equal we should of course avoid using offensive items. But if it's a question of clarity versus religious correctness we must opt for the former. Marskell 09:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Host" Is this term really offensive? The non-catholic reader may not understand Holy Communion nor want to understand it's religious significance. The word "host" is has been identified in the article as consecrated altar bread so why is it now offensive. I'm a newcomer here and not trying to pick a fight but I'm seeing some wierd defensive stuff. It's fine to be sure that the words in an article are not offensive but the article shouldn't read like a Catechism either. So Patsw, why is it offensive? --hydnjo talk 03:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Oops, your objection is to "wafer". Sorry, I misread. --hydnjo talk 03:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear debaters,

there are a couple of principles involved in this issue:

The article should be accurate, clear and not offensive.

If these were to conflict, I agree, that "accuracy" tops "non-offensiveness", as the latter anyway is a bit of a "soft" and subjective category. However, if we can avoid being offensive, we should do so.

And it is offensive to Catholics to use the word "wafer" (because of its casual character), highly offensive to use the other words Pat mentioned, and theologically incorrect to speak of bread.

Hence, "wafer" can hardly be a compromise between "bread" and "host", your good intentions notwithstanding.

Some have argued that "host" needs to be explained to make it understandable. I can't see that. "Host" is a specific ("technical") term for a certain something. I don't think it is that cryptic to non-Catholics, especially in the context of "Holy Communion", and for furthe explanation both terms are wikilinked.

There are more difficult terms (as cited by Ann) that are not explained in this article but merely wikilinked).

Others have argued, that "host" is POV. I don't think so. "Host" is the technical term for the consecrated bread and often for the unconsecrated bread in the circular form familiar to all Catholics ("altar bread" I have heard only in the context of the Byzantine rite, where leavened bread is used). Now, Catholics believe that in the consecration bread and wine become body and blood of Christ. Lutherans and Anglicans have another view on this "transformation" and other Protestants don't belief in such a transformation at all. These are all, for WP purposes, different, conflicting POVs. However, the mere term "host" is not a POV - the POV is what the host is (in its substance).

To use "secular" terms (whatever that means) for theological/religious things is not neutral.

Another point: Fuel Wagon seems to have misunderstood something. What the priest brought to TS and tried to give to her was certainly not "unconsecrated altar bread" but rather a host, "consecrated bread" if you will. I don't know why you switched to "unconsecrated" but it's certainly factually wrong.

A possible compromise could be "host in the form of bread", but I remain unconvinced that a clarification is needed at all.

Str1977 10:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wafer was meant as a compromise in the sense that it refers to shape rather than substance. What is a little frustrating is that it appears any word that attempts to denote the host in lay, physical terms appears to offend. Marskell 10:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the diffículty with the current culture of "being offended" and "political correctness". This also feeds into the idea of NPOV - not disputing that it is needed on Wiki since it is open to all.

Note, I did not call "bread" offensive, only theologically flawed. I (obviously) don't deem my compromise wording offensive, though I deem it unnecessary. What do you, Marskell, about it? Str1977 11:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that if Ann agrees and FW then it's fine. I only edited it to begin with because they had gone 3rr. Marskell 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And your efforts to compromise were much appreciated, even though the proposed compromise was still problematic for Catholics. I'm going out to lunch now, but will respond in more detail later. Thanks Marskell, and thanks Str1977. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 12:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Marskell, thanks for your effort. Thanks, Ann, for your kind words and Bon appetit. Str1977 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted my comment about how silly this whole argument was (5307 words on whether or not you can call the sacrament wafer 'bread'). I still think it's a perfectly cromulent argument. Proto t c 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But to address the point - first off, I'm Catholic, and calling the communion 'bread' doesn't bother me. It IS bread. It's what the bread symbolises that matters. I'd rather it was called sacrament wafer, which covers both sides, without a non-Christian (or even a non-Catholic) having to click on 'host' to find out what it means, but if host is wikilinked correctly, then it's not really an issue. The bigger issue is getting the bloat on the page back down again - ast time I looked at this page (a month ago?) it was finally getting under control, and now it's ballooning again, without looking particularly different than it did 4 months ago (except longer, and with 5 versions of every argument on average, instead of 4) Proto t c 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have answered Proto's post at his talk page; the diff is here. I did not wish to clog up this page further with long quotations from Vatican documents, which probably nobody here wants to read. However, I feel it is very important to state clearly, not that Proto is mistaken in his belief that it's bread (I have no right to make that claim), but that he is very much mistaken if he thinks that his belief represents the Church's teaching. After all, if I said that I was a feminist and didn't think women should be allowed to vote, I don't think my fellow Wikipedians would immediately insert into an article something that implied that such a position was compatible with feminism. If anyone thinks that the Catholic Church teaches that the consecrated Host is bread that symbolizes Jesus, I would urge that person to read my post on Proto's page before commenting on this page.

To Marskell, I say again, thank you for trying to help. You say that you don't find it "especially relevant that TS or another Catholic finds anything but "host" heretical [and you] don't suppose we place (PBUH) after every mention of the Prophet Mohammed". First of all, we don't find "anything" but host heretical. We refer to the Blessed Sacrament, the Blessed Eucharist, the Body of Christ, and the Sacred Species. All of them would be POV, and therefore they shouldn't go in the article. I have never tried to put them in the article. It is also POV to call it "bread", as it is claiming that transubstantiation does not take place. It is against the policy of Wikipedia to make such claims. I am rather ignorant of Islam, but I don't know that leaving out (PBUH) would actually be a contradiction of the faith. It would probably be considered lacking in respect, like someone not bothering to genuflect before the Eucharist, but not like someone stating that it's bread. Incidentally, I have heard committed Muslims referring to Mohommed without adding anything after the name.

The question is not one of Catholics trying to try to get the article to present a Church teaching as if it's true, rather one of Catholics trying not to have a Church teaching contradicted. The Terri Schiavo article should not say that it is the Body of Christ, since that's a POV. It also shouldn't say that it's bread, since that's also a POV. "Bread (which Catholics believe to be the Body of Christ)" would be POV, because it would say that it is bread, but that Catholics believe otherwise. An unbiased, but very inelegant and unencyclopaedic wording would be "host (which some Christian Churches teach is the Body of Christ, but which many people believe to be bread)". In that case, Wikipedia wouldn't be taking sides. I still maintain that the original wording of "host" was best. The term is neutral, it is no more obscure than other wikfied but unexplained terms in the article, and the wikilink (as in the other cases) is quite sufficient for anyone who doesn't know what it means and wants to learn more. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am on the same page as Ann. patsw 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First, as I suggested, the wording as it stood wasn't a problem for me and the only thing I really desire is that we don't revert war over it. I mean really, if it's just "host" I'm just fine. But FW is going to come on here in the next 24 and his opinion will have to be accomodated. And larger usage issues have been brought up, which I do think need addressing...

"I have heard committed Muslims referring to Mohommed without adding anything after the name." So have I, but not in print and if used in print (ukum...clearing throat) you are a "bad Muslim". A better example is the Qur'an: it is revealed not written in the Islamic faith. This isn't a trifle--it's absolutely central to the belief system. In a very similar way, the host ceases to be bread after it is consecrated for the Catholic. I acknowledge that, but I see no need to defer to such points in Wiki any more than I would consider a description of how the Prophet "wrote" the Qur'an improper. (Another deep breath before this point): religious viewpoints are not equal to lay viewpoints in an encylcopedia of this sort. We have to view things from an a-religious (not necessarily non-religious base). In this vein, there is nothing unencylcopedic about a Wiki article calling the host "bread" or "a wafer." You say it is POV to call it the Body of Christ and equally POV to suggest it's not. No. Body of Christ is a religious viewpoint, "bread' is a default description that may be needed where the reader is uncertain. We need a "corporeal" description where the religious description remains unclarified. Marskell 23:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, Marskell. I certainly won't argue with you about what Muslims say, since I don't know, and you sound as if you do. I do, however, disagree with you when you say that saying it's not the Body of Christ is as POV as saying that it is. For example, I don't believe that Mahommed was a prophet, but I wouldn't support a wording like "Mahommed (the non-prophet)". Supposing we had to refer to Jesus in the article, and FuelWagon became worried that people mightn't know who he was. Well, we could create a wikilink to a nice, unbiased article that describes his life and teachings, and how his followers believe that he was the Son of God, born of a Virgin (without trying to affirm or deny those beliefs). Or, we could put "Jesus (the biological son of Joseph)". I am arguing that it would not be neutral to put that, or to put "Jesus (the Son of God)." FuelWagon's efforts to put "bread" in brackets after the wikified word host seem like putting in brackets that Jesus was the son of Joseph, on the grounds that some non-Christians wouldn't know who he was.

You have indicated that the use of host with a wikilink and no explanation after it is fine for you. Proto has indicated the same on your talk page. Patsw, Str1977, and I have all voiced problems with "bread" and "wafer", and have indicated that that part of the article was fine with just host. FuelWagon is not claiming that the use of "host" is POV, just that it's unclear. He has not explained why a wikilink will not suffice, when it suffices for other unknown terms like defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, thalamic stimulator, or viaticum. In reply to my question, he wrote, "All the other examples you provide are medical terms in a medical context, and how they are used in the article can point to what they mean. medical terms in a medical context." Well, so what? That does not at all explain why a wikilink doesn't suffice for "host". Okay, thalamic stimulator is "a medical term in a medical context", and "host" is a religious term in a religious context.

So, we have three people who seem to find "bread" offensive, and to prefer just "host", and two people who are quite happy with "host", but don't seem to mind. The only person who is insisting that we MUST explain what a host is in a wording that denies the real presence is someone who has a record of hostility towards those who support the Schindlers, who did not object to "host" by itself until he discovered that I wanted it, who has inserted errors into the article with his persistent obsession (I'm referring to his confusion about "consecrated" and "unconsecrated"), who has made false claims about having chosen "unconsecrated alter bread" [sic] because it appeared multiple times in the articles on host and Holy Communion, and who has so far ignored my requests that he would clarify whether he wrote that with the intention of deceiving, or as an honest error, having read the articles and imagined that he saw multiple instances of that phrase, when there wasn't even one.

To FuelWagon, I would just say that you've wasted a lot of my time over something that should never have been an issue in the first place. I had actually planned to start an article on Jacques Fesch, in the last few days, and now I haven't been able to because of this senseless battle. Also, your choice of words in Unless you can explain to me how that is not encyclopedic, it goes in (rather than, for example, unless you . . . I think it should go in) seems to suggest that you have the authority to arbitrate which edits are acceptable and which are not. Jimbo doesn't claim such an authority; neither should you. My edit summary (14.30 on 29 October) "reverted total contradiction of Catholic doctrine" was based on your incredible use of the word "UNconsecrated". At this stage, I really don't know if that was a genuine error or not, as you seem unwilling to discuss your mistakes. Your edit summary ("It may be a total contradiction of the catholic point of view, but this is a neutral encyclopedia, not a catholic encyclopedia. Other points of view, even non-catholic ones, are allowed") twelve minutes later showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Other points of view are allowed, yes, in the sense that they may be represented. To say that it was "unconsecrated" was simply wrong. To say that some people believe that it's still bread after the consecration would be true, but irrelevant in the article on Terri Schiavo. To say (as you did) that it was bread is not representing a POV; it's affirming a POV. That is not allowed. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is User:134.53.110.1 to explain the reason for the 25 October edit? patsw 03:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I would like to clear a few things up. Ann's comments to me on my talk page are, despite being fairly patronising ('Perhaps you had an uninformed or careless catechism teacher') and even insulting ('Perhaps even a priest misled you'), correct in that what I was taught may not be what she was taught. After all, unless I am very much mistaken, I live halfway around the world from her. And I'm basically lapsed, anyway. But I would like to state that my beliefs (the bread symbolises the body of Christ), and what I was taught (at a fairly progressive Catholic institution) may not entirely correspond with what Ann believes (the bread is the body of Christ), and what she was taught. This is why religious issues are such a thorny and combative issue - people of ostensibly the same religion can't even agree! And many areas of the Catholic church (go read my talk page, where ann has plastered it with sources on this matter) adhere to the strict interpretation of what the host/bread is.

I've also addressed FW on his talk page about the use of the word 'host'. Unless I see 'cerebellum (a bit of the brain)' on the article, I don't expect to see 'host (Holy Communion in the form of bread)'. If you want to know what 'host' refers to, click on it. This is how Wikipedia works. The article is bloated enough without having to explain every non-lay term (be it religious, medical, technical or scientific) in parentheses.

OK, I'm going back to sleep as far as this article is concerned now. Far too stressful. I'll check back in another month. Proto t c 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

not about an encyclopedia anymore

This argument about "host" and "bread" is not about what makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia. If it was, it would be a simple question of what explains "host" to the reader? Answer: "wafer" or "bread" or whatever. Resolution: put (wafer) in paranthesis. End of story.

But this has ceased to become an argument about explaining a topic in an encyclopedic fashion, and has become an argument that something religious can only be explained in terms that the religion in question demands it to be explained. I'm not sure how that happened, but this is not a Catholic encyclopedia. wikipedia reports ALL points of view, and that would include a secular explanation of a Catholic ceremony. And "host" is completely meaningless in the context it is used, and a secular explanation is to the reader's benefit.

To keep it out, the opponents do not argue about encyclopedic policy or encyclopedic merit. They argue about their sensitivities being offended. They argue that no secular phrasing would not offend their Catholic terminology. And I say these folks are editing the wrong encyclopedia if they believe that the Catholic religion somehow supersedes what is encyclopedic, what has encyclopedic merit, and what is NPOV. Seriously. This sudden invocation about Catholic "offense" is simply a way to sideslip wikipedia policy. Deal with it. find a secular phrasing or go somewhere else.

Your particular religion does not get special treatment simply because you declare wikipedia policy to "offend" your views. If that were the case, then given the court found that Terri would want to have life support discontinued in her condition, I declare the entire Schindler point of view offensive to Terri's view, and that the article about Terri only report Terri's view and that which is not offensive to Terri's view. And I'll start deleting every single reference to the Schindler's criticism of Michael's actions.

This is ludicrous. Find a secular wording or find a catholic encyclopedia to work on. You cannot hijack NPOV policy simply by invoking some sort of religious intolerance to policy. FuelWagon 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Six points to make to the above:

1. "Your particular religion does not get special treatment. . . I have not asked for special treatment. Wikipedia does not put in explanations in brackets that actually contradicts any religion. Can you show me an article that has "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)" On the contrary, you, FuelWagon, are trying to give a special (negative) treatment to Catholicism in your insistence that the article must put the word "bread" or "wafer" in brakets after "host" None of the Catholics here has attempted to put "host (the precious Body of the Lord Jesus Christ"; we are all happy with "host", and you seemed to be happy with that word by itself (even before it was wikified) during the six months in which it was there and in which you were heavily involved in editing this page and in which you told Ed that you had reread the whole article. Your objection started when you discovered that people who had opposed your edits on other matters wanted it. Nobody else objects to it.
2. . . . simply because you declare wikipedia policy to "offend" your views." I have not declared wikipedia policy to "offend" my views. Neither has Patsw or Str1977. I won't speak for them, but I can declare quite clearly that Wikipedia policy does not offend my views. There is no policy that requires that requires "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)", or "host (unconsecrated [sic] alter [sic] bread)". I do declare FuelWagon policy to "offend" my views. However, FuelWagon policy is not Wikipedia policy.
3. And I'll start deleting every single reference to the Schindler's criticism of Michael's actions. Do you realize that you are being disruptive?
4. You haven't shown why the only technical word in the article that needs an explanation in brackets in addition to a wikilink is one where your explanation will contradict Catholic teaching, and why it's not necessary to have one for defibrillated, intubated, tracheotomy, anoxia, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, thalamic stimulator, or viaticum. Until you can provide such an explanation, I would argue that we should go back to "host", without any explanation (as it was for six months), but wikilinked, since you feel so strongly that there would be a problem if people didn't know what it meant.
5. I used that phrasing [unconsecrated alter bread] because it is used multiple times in the other articles I mentioned previously, such as holy communion, host, etc. . As I have pointed out, that phrasing does not appear even once in either of the articles you mentioned in any version in the recent history, and probably doesn't appear in the more remote history either. You have not explained whether that false statement was a deliberate attempt to deceive or an honest error resulting from your reading the articles and imagining that something was there "multiple" times.
6. You cannot hijack NPOV policy. I am not attempting to do so. NPOV policy does not require an explanation in brackets that contradicts the teaching of one of the major religions. If you feel that the article I wrote on host violates NPOV, feel free to edit it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I agree completely with all your points. Your doing a pretty goof job speaking for me.

As for "sensitivities": I myself feel uneasy (and have stated that above) about too great an emphasis on "being offended". Hence I agree with Marskell, that accuracy and clarity top supposed offensiveness. But I think if there is a non-offensive way tp phrase things accurate and clear, I'd opt for that way. (BTW, FW, you can be glad that you're among Catholics. We are quite used to putting up with being offended. Try things like this on other pages regarding other topics and you will really feel the heat.

As for the various words proposed: IMHO "wafer", "cookie", "cracker" are offensive in themselves (the first less than the latter two, but still). "Bread" however I deem only theologically incorrect and not offensive when included in a proper wording. Hence, my proposed compromise: Holy Communion in the form of bread (Pat changed "form" to appearance, but I think form is quite compatible with Catholic teaching, as in "sub utraque forma"). I think, this makes it quite plain for anyone who doesn't know what a "host" is. So it is exactly what FW asked for.

Str1977 10:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion, and this came to me this morning. Is the offense the word, H-O-S-T or the meaning behind it? Is it that host has various meanings in different contexts? Can the word Eucharist be useful in the place of host? A non-catholic (or at least one who does not follow Church literature) should understand among Catholics, "cracker" and "cookie" as used for host are offensive, as they are used to demean in some circles what we regard as Christ among us. The word "wafer" has been used to describe the Eucharist in the catholic context as a meaningless sacrament; maybe this would explain to a non-catholic why the feelings are strong. When one is taking a particle of the Host or Eucharist, we assume they are trying to unite themselves with Christ. It is an essential part of Catholic teaching, maybe even the core. Anything that would make it seem that Mrs. Schivo was trying to eat a mere wafer, engenders strong feelings from Catholics, myself included, just a strong as you feel that the article should be nuetral on what you regard as a matter of Faith. Did I help a bit there, FuelWagon? Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You probably just enflamed him more. To be clear, "cookie" and "cracker" were never suggested; Pat used them for emphasis. If you have a better way to provide a lay physical description that would be good. I think I'll go back Str's wording ("form" rather than "appearance"). Ann didn't mind it, I don't and I don't see why FW should. He's got his paranthetical reference.

Also while I broadly agree with Ann, I fail to see how "Mahommed (the non-prophet)" or "Jesus (the son of Joseph)" compare to the discussion we're having here. Those would be crude attempts to provoke not attempts to clarify religious usage. Not the FW doesn't have some provocation on his mind methinks, but those examples seem to be mixing apples and oranges. Marskell 13:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited "form" to "appearance" to remove ambiguity and increase accuracy. The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". Since there was no objection to the this edit to "appearance" on this talk page, there is no justification for reverting to "form".

Str1977 wrote "I think form is quite compatible with Catholic teaching." This is an invitation to discuss and not an objection. On the other hand, I am certain that "form" is not compatible with Catholic teaching. An objection that would justify an edit would be a complete exchange between Str1977 and myself resulting in one of us agreeing on compromise. Marksell was not delegated by me to implement compromise wording and not a participant in a form v. appearance discussion which, in fact, has yet to take place. patsw 14:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Form doesn't have to be compatible with Catholic teaching. It has to be compatible with an attempt at cogent description. "Marksell was not delegated by me to implement compromise wording." I wasn't aware that I had to be. Honestly, what the hell does that mean? No one delegated you to change it to begin with. It initially stood as form when Str edited. Marskell 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is basic Wikipedia editing protocol: If one editor believes the reason given for an edit is incorrect, then a new edit can be made and explained in the summary. This is what I did. I have followed the Wikipedia protcol.

Marskell, you didn't raise an objection to "appearance" as being less ambiguous or less accurate than "form". So what other justification is there to edit it back to "form"? patsw 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I must be missing something: edit without Talk for an initial change but for subsequent revision you need to be "delegated" from Talk? Nope. I was "per Str1977" if that wasn't obvious.

"Appearance" increases ambiguity as it begs the question of whether you're piling a second non-corporeal description on top of an initial one. The point of the caveat is that it be non-theological and in this context it's hard to find anything simpler than "form." As it stands, it's been removed and I'm becoming less and less interested in wasting time over it. We'll just see if FW wants to change it again. Marskell 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it your position that two descriptions must appear, one "non-corporeal" and a second "coporeal" description to contradict the first?

My choice of "appearance" is that it would not raise an objecton to a Catholic and from a non-believer's point of view would not raise an objection because it retains the appearance of bread.

"Form" is problematical for the reasons that Ann has been citing all along: In its ambiguity it denies the religious beliefs of the subject of the article, some of the editors, and Catholic readers. patsw 15:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as it is used generically, without theological implication I see no contradiction. As I've said more than once, what is frustrating is that any attempt at physical description appears to offend. If someone asks me its shape I'll say "wafer." That's its shape. If someone asks me what its made of I'll say bread. That doesn't stand in contradiction to anyone's religious POV. It's a disparate, not a contradictory, frame of reference, in the same way "television" is both a medium and a box of wires sitting in front of me in a cabinet. Marskell 16:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am also troubled by the idea that no physical description is allowable. The reason "host" is unique from those other terms like "anoxia" is that host has a clear meaning to most English-speaking readers, and it is useful to clarify that this is not the meaning we intend here. There must be a way to express this meaning to the secular community in a NPOV manner, and it is extremely disruptive that a religious group is trying to hijack this by removing any references to the physical manifestation of "host." In other situations, WP has always tended to err on the side of providing scientific descriptions of fact even when they contradict religious teachings (see significant sections of Shroud of Turin, Book of Mormon, and other similar articles). We need to do the same here and provide a simple context clue for readers. This is not the Encyclopedia Catholica. ESkog | ^Talk 17:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I ask. It is Marskell's position and ESkog's position that the Terri Schiavo article must contain an explanation of Holy Communion that contradicts Catholic belief? (i.e. the Encyclopedia Atheista)

For ESKog: The original text of the article remained unedited for at least six months before a four word anonymous edit on 25 October

For Marskell: The proper analogy would be to assert that "television" is both a medium and not a medium. That is a contradiction.

If there's any "disruption" to complain about, it did not commence with the Catholic editors. patsw 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If I thought adding a quick paranthetical to a medical term would help readers understand, I would add it. A quick look at how "anoxia" is used indicates that the sentence could at least be rewritten to improve readibility and so that a reader understands what's being discussed. "Host" means nothing outside the Christian faith. Either the sentence needs to be rewritten to explain that "host" means a communion wafer or a parenthetical needs to be added to explain. And the absolutely positively only reason to NOT insert it is because it "offends". And to that, it's not about beign encyclopedic anymore if there is absolutely no secular term to explain this that isn't offensive to the Catholic sensibilities. FuelWagon 01:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding, thank you. You want host explained, lets work on that solution then. I proposed Eucharist as a comprimise. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I took the points you made into consideration and have learnt something from them. However, I still think "form" is a wording we should be able to agree on.

FW, you are mistaken that "host" means nothing to non-Catholics. It is a specific term, like a technical term, but it is the accurate term. There is no such thing as a secular wording. If you insist to have a short explanation, it should be worded so as to be accurate and non-offensive (if possible - but I think it's possible). It should be spelled properly (hint! your version could be reverted solely because of orthography).

Str1977 11:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I like how it looks at the moment, following work by Dominick and Ann. Proto t c 12:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I concurr with Proto. Thanks to Ann and Dominick. Str1977 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, FW are these changes more acceptable to you? If you have more discussion, lets hash it out further. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 13:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

hash

The section currently says something to this effect:

In accordance with the Catholic ritual of Viaticum, she received Holy Communion for the last time; it had been administered to her once through her feeding tube just before it was removed. The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species), and, as her tongue was too dry to receive a small piece of the Communion host, a tiny drop of consecrated wine was applied to her tongue instead.

Can someone explain grammatically what "The Eucharist can be offered under either form (or species)" means? either implies two choices. grammatically, the above construction is confusing as to what those two choices are. FuelWagon 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, either implies two choices; both are clearly stated in that section:

• Choice number 1 "a small piece of the Communion host"
• Choice number 2 "a tiny drop of consecrated wine"

There's no grammatical confusion there (speaking as a linguist). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Catholicism, you can take Communion with one or the other species, it used to be that only the host was offered. In traditional Mass this is the only way offered. In other rites, consecreted wine or the Host is offered, and sometimes both. Gramatically it is correct as a technical definition, it explains she was given Communion in a valid manner, and how both manners may be employed. IMHO, the term (or species) may be removed, what part of it gives you pause?. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand FWs point, by a separate channel. I will try another fix. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That clarifies it, Dominick. FuelWagon 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Oral Feeding and the Second Guardianship Challenge" section

I find the second paragraph of that section a bit strange, with all the "bullet 17" etc. bits. Also, I think there's too much quotation within quotation, so I want to look up the documents and see what was taken verbatim, and what is or can be paraphrased. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in the spirit of summary style we should paraphrase concisely where we can and not over-use quotes. Marskell 09:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It was originally the wording from the Guardian ad litem with the idea that his wording would be the most neutral. An edit war broke out over various specific accusations made by the Schindlers, and they got included with references to the bullet numbers in their motion against Michael. So, it is a mix of neutral Guardian ad litem information along with specific POV accusations by the Schindlers. FuelWagon 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of quotes here was a mess. I've tried to clarify and shorten. However, the reference to specific bullets still remains. It seems a little odd but I don't want to drop a reference unnecessarily. I did drop the S's felt Michael was "not acting in her best interests." This is obvious. Marskell 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Eating Disorder

Does anyone have more detailed information on the cause of her heart attack(supposedly an eating disorder)? Superm401 | Talk 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. What you read in the current version of the article is about the limit of known reliable information. Doctors noted a potassium imbalance after Terri collapsed. They think it may have been due to an eating disorder. Michael filed a lawsuit against the doctor for not detecting the eating disorder and won the lawsuit, which was appealed, and then settled out of court. During that trial, a friend testified she believed Terri had an eating disorder and Michael testified that he saw some peculiar eating habits from Terri. a while later (a few years?) a bone scan came out that the Schindlers tried to use to prove that Michael had abused Terri and that she may have collapsed because he choked her, beat her, or similar. But this must also be viewed in contrast to the fact that for about 4 years, the Schindlers got along just fine with Michael while he was Terri's guardian. The big blowout came when they had a fight over how to spend the lawsuit money. This is when the Schindler's first challenge Michael's guardianship, but they were never successful in removing him as guardian, despite repeated efforts. It was several years after her collapse taht the bone scan came to the Schindler's attention, and they used that information in one of their attempts to remove Michael as guardian. Doctors then revealed that the damage seen on the bonescan was consistent with someone who had collapsed while standing and had been given CPR by paramedics. For several years, there isn't much else about the cause fo Terri's collapse. The autopsy results said that there was no scarring of her esophogaus that would be consistent with an eating disorder, nor did the autopsy find any evidence of abuse or physical assault. The autopsy also noted that the potasium levels may have been altered by Terri's treatment immediately after her collapse, in which she would ahve been given an IV for fluids, and that may explain the potassium levels. I think the autopsy said her heart looked normal. It also mentions that the sort of blood tests they did on Terri when she first collapsed were much more limited than the sort of tests they would do now. In short, the autopsy says we don't know why she had the cardiac arrest. Other than that, there's not much else other than a whole bunch of speculation that doesn't have objective support. FuelWagon 19:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)