Talk:Ezekiel Emanuel

This article was nominated for deletion on 20/3/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

notable

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

end of life counseling

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)

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)

Special Adviser for Health Care @ OMB

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)

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)

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)

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)

Controversy

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)

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)

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)

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.