Jump to content

Talk:Ezekiel Emanuel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DEATH OF ZEKE

[edit]

DEAD AT AGE 75 Dr. Zeke Emanuel: "75 Years Long Enough to Live" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/DrZeke-Emanuel-Morning-Joe-Obamacare-old-age/2014/09/22/id/596104/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.76.134 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's around 60 by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8795:2C00:714E:7FAF:AA4C:3F03 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

notable

[edit]

per WP:BIO, for the reasons cited in the article. Whiskey Pete 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end of life counseling

[edit]

Should there be a mention of the counseling people to voluntarily end their own lives? (end of life counseling?) ggb667 20:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All cited sources I've read so far show that while he believes people have the right to opt out of life saving care, he strongly opposes euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. I think that's a popular misconception that might be appropriate for the controversy section. Anton.hung (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I think people are frantically trying to erase any history, especially hard copy writings that show this man is a social utopian who espouses the complte lives theory which means health RATIONING.

Wikipedia, if you are to be taken as a credible source, please stop trying to cover up for this man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.157.201 (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, citing Media Matters for America as a source of any kind aside from opinion would not serve Wikipedia readers well... Also, the controvery article reads like a defense of Emanuel's points somewhat hiding references to Emanuel's paper: "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions." Also, might we want to question the idea that points supporting Dr. Emanuel and attempting to prove against Dr. McCaughey's writings on the subject are taken from editorials (read: opinions) of people paid to assert their own opinings rather than report news? Claiming her to be automatically incorrect on the basis of one's opinion does not seem right for a virtual encyclopedia to assert as well... -- S. Baldrick 4/26/10

"hiding references to Emanuel's paper ..." - in what way exactly? The article mentions all the material quoted by McCaughey and much else besides. Also, if the article is not to make it appear that McCaughey is "automatically incorrect", does this mean that she accurately described the title of the scarce medical interventions article? Or the first sentence? McCaughey did in fact omit the fact that Ezekiel was talking about rationing of necessity because of scarcity (there are waiting lists for organ transplants, vaccines are scarce during pandemics and so forth). Is there in very specific point to what you're saying? An example would be more clear.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I couldn't find the "Media Matters" reference. Where is it supposed to be?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it wasn't just "editorials" and "opinings" that criticized McCaughey. It wasn't just TIME or just PolitiFact or just Republicans like Johnny Isakson that criticized the death panel story. Are you sure you read the article?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Adviser for Health Care @ OMB

[edit]

How to incorporate this into his article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915835,00.html

Emanuel is certainly notable these days for having his quotations taken out of context in regards to the talks on health care reform. --Geopgeop (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article will NOT continue to be vandalized by Obama Admnitration or other goverment agencies or special interest groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.117.231 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the contents of the TIME article are important to incorporate into this article. In fact, it must be added to ensure a lack of bias in the article. I think the Controversy section would be most appropriate. --Zach425 talk/contribs 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be thoroughly scrubbed of all Republican Bias. The health care bill is too important to allow Emanuel's comments to be taken completely out of context. He never said any of those things he was quoted as saying. At all. If his campaign to change the public view of his opinions and pass the health care bill is not reflected here because of Repuiblican paid shills we are doing wrong.99.135.169.168 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

I am restoring and elaborating on the Controversy section. It is an important aspect of current events being cited by members of Congress, the New York Post, Time.com, many other newspapers, websites, and blogs, and has been a topic brought up commonly at congressional town hall meetings. If someone has conflict with the section, I would ask for help in cleaning it up to remove or refute bias without just deleting content. Anton.hung (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could do was add a summary to the beginning and put some of the larger quotes of Emanuel's in block form. It would be helpful if someone could attach some dates to these quotations. As for the length of the section, while it is admirable to lay out the full quotes by Emanuel that Betsy McCaughey has taken in issue with, it might be more reasonable to better summarize Emanuel's quotes, or just to keep the first section relating to the "death panels". However most of this material should really be added to McCaughey's article, which is conspicuously absent of a controversy section when it was she who in fact started the controversy.--Waxsin (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section is admittedly long. I thought before that, given the media attention to such issues, and to avoid charges of selective quoting, context was necessary in spite of the length problem. However, maybe someone can find a good way to summarize carefully. The summary you added helps.
I would be ok with moving the part after "Death panels" to the McCaughey article if people their don't argue that it should be moved back here again.
Strangely enough, some wikipedians thought the controversies section was pro-McCaughey. Such was not the intention.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Controversy section is decidedly non-neutral. It can easily be percieved as an attack on Betsy McCaughey. If Emanuel were to sue her and win in a court of law, you could present that as fact, but the way this section of the article is written is as opinion. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear on that issue; opinion does not belong on these pages.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.148.53 (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this section reads more like a refutation of McCaughey's accusations than a biographical sketch. Maybe better to acknowledge that there is a controversy and that McCaughey has been accused of taking Dr. Emanuel's quotes out of context. As noted above, this really isn't the place to defend Dr. Emanuel or debate McCaughey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.175.212 (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the opinion of editors here, Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies apply, and the references I could find that Wikipedia includes as good sources of information indicate the same thing you could see if you read some of Ezekiels's writings, at least the parts near the top where he does indeed mention rationing specifically for scarce resources (organs and vaccines, or which patient should get a liver transplant). Available evidence indicates that Ezekiel was, in fact, not talking about rationing all or most of health care. Also, available references indicate that he did, indeed, oppose euthanasia in the form of doctor assisted suicide. The WP:UNDUE policy is relevant in that a discredited theory (the flat earth theory, the death panel theory and so on) should not be given equal weight to more credible theories.
However, Ezekiel was probably wrong when he recently said that no rationing would be needed, since rationing is happening right now. But there is no evidence that he advocated the kind of extreme rationing that Palin called "Orwellian."
A lot of fact-checkers have examined the facts of the death panel issue, and it would be easy to list more than a dozen good references refuting it. Also, it would not be neutral to mention Betsy McCaughey's statements without mentioning the other side. What McCaughey had to say is quoted in the article.
At least people don't think the article is too anti-Ezekiel any more, apparently.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puff Piece

[edit]

This article looks like it was written by his PR firm. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) This article reads more like an attack on McCaughey than a biographical sketch of Dr. Emanuel. I think the controversy section should be removed to a separate article on "death panels." Leaving it here is not in keeping with wiki standards for biographiesToddisme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any well-documented and relevant pro-McCaughey information to add? If so, what?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocratic Oath

[edit]
I removed the hypocratic oath section for several reasons. One, it is a WP:COAT against BM. Two it uses as partisan political source to make a factual statement against BM. Three, because of one and two it is in violations o WP:BLP. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section didn't say that McCaughey lied, only that she was incorrect. I'll remove the word "incorrectly", if you think that's excessive after reading what both sides have to say, but McCaughey and Emanuel did say what they said, and this belongs in the controversy section because McCaughey published her accusations in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
Betsy McCaughey is Betsy McCaughey.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged coatracking was done by McCaughey. I didn't tell her to do that.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How? Did she edit this page? Arzel (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, she editorialized about Emanuel in The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and elsewhere. What she wrote is notable because everyone notes it. It's about Emanuel because she wrote about Emanuel.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article does mention McCaughey's point of view, including references that link to several of her editorials. Should any attempt be made to make these opinions out to be any more or less than what can be gotten at from good references? If not, the Advertisement tag isn't appropriate. Is there any good proof that McCaughey is more correct than is indicated in the article? If so, what is it?Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing is original research and synthesis of material. You cannot take multiple sources and link them together to present information to which was not specified in the sources. Additionally, MMfA is a partisan source and is not considered a reliable source for factual information. They and other partisan sources are generally only usable as a source of opinion, such as X has been criticized by Y for what they feel is Z. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MediaMatters was used for quotes. McCaughey's opinion articles are referenced as well. I doubt that quotes are OR, and the controversy is about McCaughey's research, or whatever.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The June 18 article Emanuel wrote for the Journal of the American Medical Association was added as a reference for the Emanuel quote. McCaughey's Cavuto interview and articles are cited for the McCaughey quote. They're just quotes. And it was McCaughey who cited the June 18 article Emanuel wrote for JAMA about the Hippocratic Oath. MediaMatters didn't link the two. I didn't link McCaughey's opinions with the JAMA article. McCaughey did.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Wall Street Journal article McCaughey wrote, "In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care: ... " followed by a quote from Emanuel from JAMA. McCaughey's April 29, 2009 article for Investors Business Daily quotes from the same JAMA article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not any editor here that took "multiple sources and link them together to present information to which was not specified in the sources". This was all done by McCaughey in the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily and Fox Business News. Is there any other reason for your Advertisement tag?Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to keep having conversations like this. How are things?Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem. You set the premise that BM says that EE is trying to eliminate the Hypocratic Oath. Then you quote BM. Then you go into WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by stating "This is what EE really said" and use MMfA as your source (not a WP:RS for a statement of fact). You are doing original research, tying together a couple of sources to make the conclusion that BM is a liar. You need to find a WP:RS that specifically makes this statement otherwise it is in violation of several policies. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just MediaMatters for the reference any more. Not even close. Also, read the references and the above, since it doesn't sound as though you did. They answer your questions. As a recap, McCaughey repeated on a Fox News interview comments similar to the ones she made previously in IBD and subsequently in the WSJ. The quote marks are because McCaughey said that Emanuel wants to eliminate the Hippocratic Oath. She didn't use references for the interview (nobody ever does), but used the article Emanuel wrote (again, read the references) when making the same claim in print. The description of Emanuel talking about the Hippocratic Oath when describing tests for Zebra diagnoses is because the phrase here was used by Emanuel. Again, see references.
Again, read the references before commenting further.
Also, and again, the article never did speculate as to whether McCauphey is or is not a liar. She probably was inaccurate, but the word "incorrectly" was removed since that seemed to be what your complaint was about, if anything.
Again, it was McCaughey who tied her assertion to a specific article written by Emanuel.
Also, you removed a short summary of a point that was explained with many references. Why?
It seems we both know another editor who also keeps reverting without reading the references. Again, read the references, please.
Also, that was your third revert in less than a day.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel has a valid point regarding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This article in its current form indisputably brings together information from multiple sources to drive home points that have not been made in any WP:RS cited in the article. (Note: I am not disputing the perspective, as I agree from reading Emanuel's works that what the article is currently portraying is largely accurate.) I think the best way to get around this issue is by splitting up the content. Maybe we can create a section before the Controversy section that puts across Emanuel's published views on topics such as rationing and the hippocratic oath, then simply state how his works have been portrayed by McCaughey and others in the Controversy section. If we simply present the facts of what Emanuel said followed by the facts of what McCaughey said, there should no longer be issues about SYNTH or OR.
Also, it's helpful to reach a consensus on Talk pages before restoring controversial sections that have been deleted. --Zach425 talk/contribs 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're sincere, but your point, if any, is that she didn't use the exact same words when talking about the same thing on four different occasions, perhaps? I clarified some more, but as quoted above, she did reference Emanuel's June JAMA article in the WSJ and IBD editorials and in Deadly Doctors when talking about Emanuel and the Hippocratic Oath, and the interview was a repitition of the same point. Could this "valid point" be a small one? And the alternative is redundent.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is very redundent, but splits out things more. I think the less redundent version would be better for the long term. I don't expect anyone to admit they're wrong.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, if there is more to this "valid point" than I'm guessing, point it out.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it clear enough now? What, again, was the "valid point" about who it was that connected McCaughey's comments about Emanuel and the Hippocratic Oath to a June 18 JAMA article, by quoting three times from it and mentioning it specifically?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Simply using the same references and rewording the section doesn't change the fact that you are presenting original research. I say again, find some reliable sources (NOT MMfA) that talk about this whole situation. Using BM editorials and then using EE comments and tying them together to try and prove that BM is wrong is the essence of WP:SYNTH. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if I was the one tying them together, but you keep repeating the same mistake over and over. It was clearly McCaughey who tied her opinions to a June 18 JAMA article co-written by Emanuel. She mentioned this three different times, and quoted from it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It doesn't matter. You are presenting a linking of information in a clear attempt to prove your point. This is the essense of synthesis of material. Furthermore you have no third party sources to back up any claim that would state the overall weight or relevance this is to the article. Emanuel and McCaughey's sources are all 1st party sources. You need some RELIABLE thirds party sources that are making the conclusion that you are trying to prove in this section. THIS IS NOT A RESEARCH PAPER. THIS IS NOT A THESIS. MMfA is NOT a reliable source for this kind of material, they are a highly partisan source and the section violates NPOV by using them as the basis for your only third party information. What is it that you don't understand about WP:OR WP:SYNTH and WP:RS? Forgive me if I sound a little terse, but you have not addressed any of the issues I have presented other than to claim that I am wrong. YOU CANNOT MAKE THE CONNECTION, how can I make this any clearer? You must have a Reliable Third Party Source that makes this connection you are trying to make, otherwise you are presenting Original Research. Arzel (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly assume good faith regarding the action taken. However, it did come with lightning speed. Perhaps someone was that quick in reading all the references? If MediaMatters and McCaughey's references for what she wrote aren't good enough, is TIME mainstream enough?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for Hippocratic Oath statements

[edit]

Given the timeline of McCaughey's statements:
April 29 – The Attack on Doctor’s Hippocratic Oath
May 11 – Fox Interview
July 24 – Deadly Doctors
August 27 – Obama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief

Maybe you have the unlikely concern that McCaughey remembered the June 2008 JAMA article as the source of her concerns in the April 29 editorial, where she quoted from it and mentioned it specifically.
Forgot where she got her ideas from during the May 11 Fox interview, as opposed to the more likely theory than nobody cites references during an interview.
Remembered the June 2008 JAMA article as the reason for her complaint in the July 24 editorial.
Remembered the JAMA article again in her August 27 editorial.

In the unlikely event that McCaughey might have had another article in mind during the Fox interview that she didn't know about before, and forgot about afterward, the article makes it clear that McCaughey did not cite references during the Fox interview. Of course, no one ever does cite references during an interview.

Your unlikely concern has been addressed.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, IT DOESN"T MATTER. You are the one making the connection. That is Original Research. Find an independent Third Party Resource that makes the argument you are trying to prove. And if you can't find one then this whole incident simply isn't that notable. Arzel (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it was McCaughey who made the connection, not me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reported. I don't have time to waste trying to explain this to you anymore. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Posted as of Sep 2, 2009 - So what terrible but well documented things did Emanuel do that should be added to the article? Anything?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this the same guy who starred in a late 70's BBC adventure gameshow called Now Get Out Of That? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.247.208 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it must be. Here it is, it should go in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6kNOnipRws Gusssss (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? 1998

[edit]

Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., and Margaret P. Battin, Ph.D. 1998 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199807163390306

This work by Emanuel should be in this article I feel. Vexorg (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable care act

[edit]

Dr. Emanuel is a chief architect of the Affordable Care Act. That should go in the header above the TOC as it is incredibly important context.BakerStMD T|C 22:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ezekiel Emanuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ezekiel Emanuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ezekiel Emanuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Ezekiel Emanuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezekiel_Emanuel&oldid=1207104288"