Talk:Mary S. Sherman

	Biography portal 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.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed neutrality

What's the reason for the neutrality dispute? I'm going to remove the tag if no-one objects. 220.233.178.130 (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should probably be deleted.

It is entirely based on a fringe book by one Ed Haslam, a book that few even among conspiracy theorists believe. Mary Sherman was a reputable orthopedic surgeon, but she shows up here because of wacky JFK assassination conspiracy theories. The page asserts, for example, that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Allowing stuff like this to go up makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. -- John McAdams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcadams1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those pages that makes Wikipedia look so unreliable - no sources, and yes, seemingly completely based on a conspiracy theorist's book. I question its neutrality and claims. Embarrassing. -Ann Burlingham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Burlingham (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman, Oswald, and SV40

Mr. 108.2.194.57: I reverted your changes because the assertion that Sherman and Oswald worked together on a secret project involving Simian virus 40 is already in Wikipedia. In that regard, see the link in the new "See also" section that I added.

Judyth Vary Baker has stated and has written that she worked with both Sherman and Oswald on this project. See her interviews, posted on YouTube, and see her book, titled Me and Lee. SamanthaJF (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to the insertion of Haslam's claim because it is mentioned in what is likely a reliable secondary or tertiary source. WP:WEIGHT may still be relevant. On the other hand, primary source material from Baker is definitely not a reliable source. Location (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

Improved since this stuff has been moved to its own section, but still WP:UNDUE coverage. If Jim Garrison had something significant to say about Sherman, why is it found nowhere except (presumably) in an interview in Playboy? Both the Michael Newton source (currently being astoundingly misused) and the Riddick source clearly dismiss the conspiracy theories of Haslam and Mellen. This section really needs to be trimmed to improve coherency and adherence to WP:FRINGE guidelines. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree section needs trimming and cherry picked statements to support a theory that the source explicitly dismisses are not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Bias; Lack for Objectivity

As per Wikipedia policy, the existence of this page constitutes basis that all pertinent information regarding Dr. Sherman be presented, and precisely articulated, forthright without hesitation -- accurately, objectively, unprejudiced, sans your personal bias, sans omission. You people, whoever you are, are acting in collusion, wantonly abusing the Wikipedia to suppress key facts regarding circumstance of Dr. Sherman, her employment, and in particular, her immediate periphery of colleagues and acquaintances at her approximate time death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.22.190 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the undoing of my small factual edit was inappropriate and an attempt to promote a POV not supported by facts. The sentence I added to the end of the section on her death was as follows, "However, the strange nature of her injuries which included the incineration her right arm, bone and all, that left only a charred stump from her shoulder and exposed her liver while leaving her left side untouched and long hair intact gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories that include the hypothesis that the murder scene in her bedroom was staged in order to cover up a laboratory accident and that the stab wound to her heart was an act of euthanasia." This material is included in the reference already used to cite the stab wound to her heart as the cause of death. I suggest it is much more appropriate than simply listing her death as a murder with no mention that it was determined that the stabbing had taken place somewhere other than her bedroom. Even her ribs were burned away, but mentioning the incineration of her arm is enough and fully warranted. Seabreezes1 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked again. The source does not support that sentence. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 07:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the section below from that source not support the statement that the bizarre nature of her injuries led rise to conspiracy theories? By no means should we go into them here, but acknowledging her injuries were well beyond a stab wound seems appropriate.

"The only remaining portion of Sherman’s right arm was a piece of her upper arm bone. The rest of the extremity was burned to a crisp. The body was discovered in Sherman’s bedroom and the bed was smoldering. However, neither Keith nor Haslam believed the fire was intense enough to have caused almost complete thermal destruction of an arm.

Haslam hypothesizes that government forces installed a huge clandestine linear accelerator on the Uptown grounds of the old U.S. Public Health Hospital. Sherman conducted experiments there to mutate monkey viruses to assist a CIA plot headed by Ochsner to mutate monkey viruses. Something went wrong with the linear accelerator and Sherman suffered a severe but non-fatal burn. If she had been taken to an emergency room, the nature of her burn injuries would’ve exposed their occult plot. One of her comrades sacrificed her with a knife wound to her chest. Her charred body was then moved to her apartment, more stab wounds were inflicted to make it look like a crazed sex killing and then her bed and body were set on fire.

I called Dr. Samuels, who remembers the autopsy and discounts an offsite thermal injury. “She had severe right-sided burns with exposure of her liver. There was no soot in her lungs meaning that she was dead before any fire...."

I read the book (and saw the autopsy photos) because of an interest in SV40, and am not interested in the assassination hypothesis. Just saying a sentence describing the facts of her bizarre injuries and the subsequent drama is appropriate for this entry, i.e. "However, the strange nature of her injuries which included the incineration her right arm, bone and all, that left only a charred stump from her shoulder and exposed her liver while leaving her left side untouched and long hair intact gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories that include the hypothesis that the murder scene in her bedroom was staged in order to cover up a laboratory accident and that the stab wound to her heart was an act of euthanasia." Wordsmith if you like, but really, as written the item is disinformative. She would have died from her burns, which in addition to her liver also cooked her eyes, yet left her hair intact. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one way or the other about elaborating on Sherman's injuries, but I agree with Roxy the dog of Doom™ in that the source does not support the sentence as it was written. -Location (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the omission of the nature of Sherman's injuries, documented in the autopsy report (difficult to find, admittedly), destroys the credibility of this page as it stands. 88.120.130.106 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 01:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]