Talk:Jahi McMath case

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. California: San Francisco Bay Area C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

On 19 February 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved from Jahi McMath to Jahi McMath case. The result of the discussion was moved.

-type section, which would require a

Hello everyone-this is IP again. So, I am in agreement that avoiding personal blogs for this is a good plan, BUT, there have been developments. Now, using reliable sources and mainly newspapers etc. would add and update the "news" part of this, and the back and forth about the arguments of the case(s), BUT-again, there is a blog that lays-out ALL of the cases. http://thaddeuspope.com/jahimcmath.html So.I looked for copyright info. there and could not find, so a "steal" wouldn't work, and I think taking it without credit isn't really right either. Unless anyone wants to painstakingly find updates in line with what we have already done,I propose something like, (new section) Further cases and legal actions and then (something like),"here's a link to Professor T.Pope's documentation re: cases"? or something about how there are now multiple cases moving-through the courts with the cite and ref directing to T Pope's page? What do you guys think about that?50.182.180.55 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult case to present neutrally but you have done an excellent job. Avocats (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

There is this paragraph near the end of the section "Aftermath":

"After viewing over four dozen independent videos of the girl, Dr. Alan Shewmon, a UCLA pediatric neurologist, declared the girl technically alive in a June 29, 2017, court filing, affirming that the girl follows movement commands and exhibits other proof of life. However, Melinda Krigel, spokeswoman for the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital, affirms equally strongly that the diagnosis of the pediatric neurologists who have seen the videotapes in question remains correct in 2017."

I've read through the section that this paragraph is in several times and I'm still confused about the sentence beginning with "However". Maybe I'm just missing something because there are so many people to keep track of, but I don't see why that sentence should start with "However". That transition word suggests that Krigel and "the pediatric neurologists who have seen the videotapes in question" have a different opinion from those of Shewmon, but I don't actually see anything about who those neurologists are or which side they're on... so it's like I can't "confirm" that the transition word "however" is actually correct.

tl;dr The sentence starting with "However" seems to have appeared out of the blue.

199.111.212.204 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, that is strange. I think the USCF spokesperson is saying that pediatric neurologists had earlier diagnosed McMath as brain dead and confirmed that diagnosis after viewing the videos. Their confirmation that McMath is brain dead is in contrast to Shewson's declaration that McMath is technically alive. That said, the paragraph could be better written and I'd like to check what the sources say before I make any changes. Ca2james (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made a few changes and added a source to support the text. Let me know what you think. Ca2james (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer now. Thank you! 199.111.212.193 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 sources given for the proposition that the lawyer has withdrawn his motion to cancel the death certificate, but at least 2 of them don't actually say that. Citation 13 says it, but citations 10 and 12 don't. 71.163.138.159 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]