Talk:Jack Kevorkian/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kevorkian: Hero or villain?

should there be arguments for and criticizing the actions of Kevorkian, or should that be more centered on the assisted suicide page?(Transcona Slim 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Much more fitting here. As far as I can tell, it also needs some info on what the state of the patients were, beyond that they just wanted to die. Were they terminally ill? Depressed? Other reasons? Are there statistics on this? --Safe-Keeper 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jack Kevorkian is a hero, not a villain. If someone want's too die, but is not physically capable, they should have the option of doctor assisted suicide. —Finny Kununsigned comment added by Finny kun (talkcontribs) 03:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody in encyclopaediae are heroes or villains. You should all at least pretend the Wikipedia is more than a propaganda organ for every moronic media darling to float along. You don't argue in an encyclopaedia, you state facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.47.4 (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

let the activists fight for right and wrong, his history is unique indeed and actions need reasoning of mind. as he said if one tries to interrupt a natural process it means he is trying to play God, keep in mind "play God".

more facts from his side is needed in the article and more research should be done to prove him wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medrik Minassian (talkcontribs) 11:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs rewrite

Yeah.. this page needs to be completely rewritten. Someone with an agenda vanalized the hell out of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.255.188 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a rewrite, mainly because it's annoying to see nearly the whole article have nothing but "citation needed" stamped on the whole thing as if someone desperately wants it to bawlete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Abiguity in passage

The following passage I find ambiguous. Please edit... elpincha 13:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(...) and in the end is not equipped to evaluate whether a prospective client is clinically depressed and therefore, according to accepted medical (and legal) thought, incapable of deciding to end his own life.
  • The passage seems good to me, but if you dont't like it, why don't you go ahead and edit it yourself? Be Bold! --Blackcap | talk 17:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with him, it seems overly-wordy, though I understand it, it does take a bit of a pause to swallow :)

Bias - need for clarification

I'd like to see some specifics on "including medical experimentation on patients".

The phrase has disturbing overtones which may not deserve to be there.

Clarification would help here: What are these experiments? Do some people find them disturbing? Who? Anagrammarian 19:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try Jack Kevorkian's own words from his own book!

"If we are ever to penetrate the mystery of death — even superficially — it will have to be through obitiatry...Knowledge about the essence of human death will of necessity require insight into the nature of the unique awareness or consciousness that characterizes cognitive human life. That is possible only through obitiatric research on living human bodies, and most likely by concentrating on the central nervous system...to pinpoint the exact onset of extinction of an unknown cognitive mechanism that energizes life."

You know... you wouldn't be asking this if you bothered reading the references at the bottom of the article! bluespider 1:20 19 January 2006

His support for what he calls obitiatry and it's experimentation value is quite interesting, I wonder if it could find it's way back into the article without losing NPOV? 70.20.177.78 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See also

Why is Henry Morgentaler linked to from this page? As far as I can tell from that article, he's merely an abortionist and not an euthanasia advocate- while some people surely believe that the two are one and the same, it's rather POV. -Seventh Holy Scripture 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

List of patients he's assisted and prior life

Does anyone have a list of patients he's assisted in ending their lives? Also, what was his occupation prior to becoming a public figure?

Before he became a public figure, Jack's intern was in pathology. His first year of residency was at the University of Michigan Medical Center, which he began after his release from active duty in the military.
Rsage 08:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather not, citing Confidentiality, Notability (such a list is not needed), and the Right to Privacy. --Safe-Keeper 15:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Paroled in June?

According to CNN, he is up for parole in June. I thought that somebody with more information could add something about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanizzle (talkcontribs) 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Discrepancy / Cultural references

Lead: "He was paroled early in December 2006"

Lower down: "on December 13, 2006 it was announced he would be paroled on June 1, 2007."

Having parole announced and actually being paroled are not the same thing!

Also, the "Cultural references" section is insane. We do NOT need a list of EVERY SINGLE TIME Kevorkian is mentioned in anything!! 81.159.62.16 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Cultural references" section entirely. Trivia doesn't belong in most places on Wikipedia, and it certainly doesn't belong in a biography. If one of these trivia mentions is particularly iconic, to the point that it would itself pass WP:N, then it may make sense to weave it into the text. I doubt that, though. ··coelacan 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Medicine and Law

In the 1980s, Kevorkian wrote a series of articles for the German journal Medicine and Law [...]

AFAIK Medicine and Law ist not a German journal, it is released by the World Association for Medical Law based in Haifa, Israel. --80.128.130.236 14:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut's "God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian"

It may be important to note that Jack Kevorkian is an important character in Kurt Vonnegut's book "God Bless You Dr. Kevorkian", however I'm not sure where it could fit in with the current article. XHollywoodx 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He is famous for his quotation, "dying is not a crime"

Gotta be a better way to put that. I mean, that's not what he's famous for.AustinDefense 04:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed statement

I removed this statement from the article: "(Later autopsies on several of the individuals Kevorkian assisted in killing revealed that there were no signs of any terminal illness, and that the individual's main motivation to die was due to depression.)" An autopsy cannot reveal whether or not an individual suffered from depression, nor can it reveal their motivations for dying. While depression is a valid reason to want to die, and while it may have been shown that many of Kevorkian's patients did enlist his services for that very reason, that would have to have been revealed by something other than an autopsy. Perhaps medical records, or statements by Kevorkian or people who knew the deceased. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Youk - details please

There is no article on Thomas Youk, and I'm not sure there needs to be one. If somebody can dig up some details on Thomas Youk's condition and what led Jack Kevorkian to assist in his suicide, that'd be great. Right now, this article just touches on the subject and provides no detail specifically on Thomas Youk's case.--Zybez 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references

The "Pop Culture References" section appears virtually unsourced, unverifiable, and basically trivial. I'm inclined to delete the whole thing. Are there any defenders of it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a section, while seemingly common in wikipedia, is discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. Arthurrh 06:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed most of it. Left in the two non-trivial items --- second one could use a source. cab 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Played violin with Acid Bath

He certainly did not play violin on the song "New death sensation" because there is no violin in that song. I would love to believe that, but I believe this part should be deleted.Harmonic Minor (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Film

IMDB has a page for a film called Kevorkian Chronicles, a documentary scheduled for release in 2008. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Kitaro53085 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminal illness?

When Kevorkian was first paroled, news accounts (and the wikipedia article) generally stated that he was paroled in part because he was dying -- I think from pancreatic cancer. There is no mention of this in the article anymore. If that turned out to be a hoax, I think it would still be worth a brief mention (mainly because someone [like me] may be looking for more information on that). Does anybody have details and/or references? SkyDot (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"you dont know jack" an new HBO film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.145.120 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkian's jazz album

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned on this page at all, but Dr. Kevorkian has an album with the "Morpheus Quintet" in which they play his jazz compositions and Kevorkian plays flute (and organ on a hidden track). It was released in 1997, it's called "A Very Still Life". Should this be put on the page? Or should there be a "Discography" section at the end that links to it's own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.123.133 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. "A Very Still Life"? Give me a break. Proxy User (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-parole life?

Is there anything to report on what Dr. Jack Kevorkian (and I live in Michigan by the way folks) has been doing since his 2 year parole period expired? It's surprising there's nothing on him on his OWN PAGE after Feb. 5, '09, especially since at that point he would have been just about 1 1/2 to 5 months from completing the mandatory probation period. So has he gone back to practicing or is he barred from practicing or what? I find it odd, and even slightly disturbing that there is no info about any of this...98.209.67.70 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick names

Jack is usually a nickname for John. Is this the case here? If so then this should be mentioned in the lead. If not then maybe the last sentence of the lead should mention that Jack is his given name. Also, I think some mention of his nick name of "Dr. Death" be mentioned. One of the references uses that name in the title. Just questions for article improvement -- I don't think I'll be coming back to this page or the main article. WikiParker (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing about Jack/John, but couldn't find any sources. As for "Dr. Death", I don't know, but there would seem to be something awkwardly hyperbolic about it here, considering the association of "Dr. Death" with Aribert Heim. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a number of apparently reliable sources that indicate that Kevorkian's first name is actually Murad (at least it was originally). Can somebody show that his legal name is now Jack? If not, let's put him down as Murad "Jack" Kevorkian. Methychroma (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Found everything you need...see "His Name is Not Murad!" Talk post below... Donatrip (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term 'killer' is neutral, not value-added

I believe Dr. Kevorkian should have 'killer' added to his main description. From dictionary, "a person or thing that kills." I am a supporter of Dr. Kevorkian and to deny that he killed people is to demonize killing. Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. And as soon as we educate people as to what the differences are, then the sooner the term becomes neutral, like it should.

Those who revert my edit under the umbrella term 'vandalism' need to look at how Wikipedia has been using language to suppress real discussion on any matter.

174.115.170.141 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead section of a BLP article is not an appropriate place to promote this distinction. Killer is a disambiguation page that does not explain the differences. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How about adding "eater" to his main description cause we know he must eat. Seriously, we don't add "killer" to the description of soldiers or people who cause deadly accidents or those who indirectly contribute to someone's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.86.158 (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the TWO, countem TWO Trivia sections

They were as follows:

Media-- Al Pacino played Jack Kevorkian in a 2010 HBO movie entitled You Don't Know Jack. The film also stars Susan Sarandon and John Goodman.[1][2]

Industrial band Kevorkian Death Cycle was formerly named Grid but changed their name due to political motivations. They also went on a two-month "Free Jack" tour of North America.

Ska punk band Suicide Machines was originally called "Jack Kevorkian and the Suicide Machines."

Ska/reggae band the Pilfers released a song entitled "Dr. Kevorkian" on their self titled debut album.

Rap group Public Enemy released a song entitled "Kevorkian."

Metal band Strapping Young Lad released a song entitled "Velvet Kevorkian" on their 1997 album City.

Metal band Pure Sweet Hell released a song entitled "Dr. Death" on their 2003 debut album, The Voyeurs of Utter Destruction as Beauty. It features Dr. Kevorkian defending himself in court.

Metal band Anvil released a song entitled "Doctor Kevorkian" on their 1997 release Plugged in Permanent.

Author Kurt Vonnegut published a series of fictional interviews titled, "God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian" in 1999.

Cultural references--

  • The story 'Quality of Mercy' in The Prosecution Rests is a fable exploring the facets of aging, Alzheimer's disease, and euthanasia.[3]
  • Stephen Lynch makes a reference to Kevorkian in his song Grandfather
  • Rapper Eminem makes a reference to Kevorkian in his "It's Only Fair to Warn" freestyle.
  • In season three of Criminal Minds a Kevorkian reference is made when describing the person who puts down animals at the local pound
  • The Canadian Alternative band Artificial Joy Club mentions Kevorkian in their song "Sick & Beautiful"
  • "Undertaker, Please Drive Slow," an essay by Jo Ann Beard in Tin House magazine #12, describes the Kevorkian-assisted death of a cancer-sufferer from the patient's perspective
  • Musician K'naan makes a reference to Kevorkian in his song "Bang Bang"
  • In an episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Phillip has a heart attack and is treated by a Dr. Kevarkian. Upon introducing himself to the family, they emit a gasp of concern until he assures them that he's "Kevarkian, with an 'A.'"
  • In episode 1.05 of That's My Bush Dr. Kevorkian is released from prison to euthanize the family cat.
  • Rapper Wale references Kevorkian on the track "The Prescription" on his debut album, "Attention Deficit".

70.20.177.78 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Source

1997 interview on Larry King Live "Dr. Kevorkian and the Pending Supreme Court Decision On Physician-Assisted Suicide" January 14, 1997 http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/08/suicide.scotus/lkl.00.html --Lexein (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Carbon monoxide

This claim about the use of carbon monoxide This became necessary because Kevorkian's medical license had been revoked after the first two deaths, and he no longer had legal access to the substances required for the "Thanatron". [citation needed] was contradicted by multiple sources. Citations which support this claim are welcome, but where CO was used, veins were merely incapable of supporting injection. --Lexein (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

March 2011

The statements being shown are from very biased sources. Please find more neutral citations because there are some serious or liable claims being made that need rock solid citations not hear-say. Check NPOV.«Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

His name is not Murad!

This is an explanation for the edit that I am about to make.

Both the lede and the infobox as his name being Murad "Jack" Kevorkian, when this is not true at all.

From his biography, written by his BEST FRIENDS, it says:

"Satenig [the mother] wanted to name her son Murad, after a famous and courageous Armenian guerrilla fighter who fought valiantly to protect his people. She wanted her son to have the same courage as his namesake. Levon, however, wanted to call his young son Jacob. It was a solid, respectable name, one that would fit well in America. With that name, the boy would blend in at school and people would think of him as an American instead of as the son of immigrants. Satenig also wanted her son to have every advantage, so if her husband said that the right name made that possible, then she was willing to go along. At home, though, she continued to call her young son Murad. The world would know him as Jacob, the patriarch of the 12 tribes of Israel, but inside, her son would forever be Murad, a brave soldier who was willing to sacrifice his life for what was right. The doctor who signed the birth certificate wasn't at all that concerned with what the boy was named. Whether he had difficulty understanding the Kevorkians' accented pronunciation, or because he was too busy to care, he nevertheless illegibly scrawled a name on the birth certificate. That illegible name was later interpreted by a teacher as Jack. (My emphasis.)

This shows that his name was, in fact, Jacob Kevorkian. And because the teacher misinterpreted the name, it again shows that it was Jacob Kevorkian, because it is more likely that that is what was written on the certificate, rather than Murad. Think about it--which would look closer to Jack: Jacob or Murad?

I am now changing the name in both the lede and infobox. If anyone has any problem with this, by all means, come up with a better primary source to use for your information, and post a rebuttal. Donatrip (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi.
I don't really care what the infobox or lede says. The fact that the entire article currently doesn't mention "Murad" at all is not good, though.
Do you have a source for that passage? It'd be a nice fact to include in the "Life and career" section if it can be sourced to a reliable source. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I know it doesn't say Murad anymore; after I posted this rant in discussion, I went ahead and changed all the mentions of Murad to Jacob myself. (Check the History of the Article). I do agree that Murad should be mentioned somewhere, just not as his official name, because it wasn't his official name.
The particular passage above comes from a book entitled "Between the Dying and the Dead" by Neal Nicol, a friend from his first few pathology jobs and was an assistant during the suicides, and Harry Wylie, a former neighbor of Jack's. (I believe I cited this). If you have anymore questions on Kevorkian, feel free to ask...I am a very avid studier of Kevorkian and can answer most questions. Donatrip (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevorkian dead

Lots of RS now saying this. 67.233.244.224 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
CNN reported it, so it is true--76.206.27.16 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed section substantially copied from a blog per WP:COPYVIO

The Detroit Free Press report section was a mixture of close paraphrase and direct copy from this. The link was included in the article in an older version but someone removed the link(!) --Noren (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The material was added by an IP here, including a direct link to a blog that was copied. Another IP later removed the link, though it doesn't appear to have been an intentional obfuscation of the plagiarism. --Noren (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's best to remove it from the article. It seems that we could easily rework it back in, maybe with a line or two elsewhere in the prose. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
A non-plagiarized summary of the report would be a good addition to the article, if that's what you mean by reworking it back in. Leaving the copyvio in the article would have been a mistake, though. --Noren (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It goes without saying that we don't want copyright violations in Wikipedia. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Forty-five year hiatus?

It would be nice to know what events led to Dr Kevorkian's philosophy of death. However, this would appear buried in the hiatus between 1952 and 1967. Perhaps another student of this subject has some information about this period (including his medical school, board certifications, &c). Thanks! -Geologist 209.218.108.23 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The following passages come from my paper I wrote on Kevorkian...I'll post even more later when I'm not so busy:
"Jacob “Jack” Kevorkian was born on May 26th, 1928, in Michigan to Armenian refugees. After high school, Jack enrolled in civil engineering school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. While the other freshman enjoyed the social life, and partied often, Jack made the library his home. When an instructor informed him that medical school only took 90 course hours, and in his three semesters he had already racked up 57, he set his sights on becoming a doctor. Jack was advised to wait at least another year before applying to medical school as he still had 33 credits to complete before meeting the admission requirements. However, he was granted an interview. During the interview, the school expressed concern that he might drop out of medical school like he had engineering, or that he would find the course loads overwhelming. Jack replied, “You might think I’m cocky for saying this, but the reason seems obvious to me. I’m one of the smartest guys you’ll ever see walk through your door, but I’m not doing this because of my ego. I’m doing this because medicine needs me. You let me get into medical school, and I’ll prove it’s the best decision you’ve ever made.” His acceptance letter came a few months later. During his stint at medical school, he became enthralled with his pathology course. That was it for Jack; he would choose pathology as his specialty. He applied for his internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, and was accepted. It was at this hospital where he first considered Physician Assisted Suicide. As he wrote in his book, Prescription: Medicide:
“Euthanasia wasn’t of much interest to me until my internship year, when I saw first-hand how cancer can ravage the human body. The poor wretch stared up at me with yellow eyeballs sunken in their atrophic (withering) sockets… It seemed as though she was pleading for help and death at the same time. Out of sheer empathy alone I could have helped her die with satisfaction. From that moment on, I was sure that doctor-assisted euthanasia and suicide are and always were ethical, no matter what anyone says or thinks.” It would be almost 40 years later before he would assist his first patient to die."
And later:
"In 1986, Jack continued his pet project begun when he was a medical resident, which was medical experimentation on death row inmates. Although he was against the death penalty, he felt that these healthy inmates’ bodies were not being used to the extent that they could be. (A large majority of inmates loved this idea; they felt that if their body would be used for the benefit of society, they themselves would finally be doing something good in their lives.) Jack wanted to understand how doctors conducted euthanasia, so he traveled to the Netherlands to observe and learn from physicians that had been practicing euthanasia since the 1970s. While Jack was in the Netherlands, he gave up on his idea for the death row inmates, instead opting for a “much more significant cause, and one that had a chance of being accepted in the States.” Jack was determined to give these suffering terminally ill patients a real solution."
Hope some of this helps! And like I said, I'll be back later with some more info about this. Donatrip (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List

Removed the list of patients. It's unsourced and of questionable value.PacificBoy 19:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to do the same thing - I agree with you that the list has little value, and I think that would be true even if it were fully sourced. A bare list of Kevorkian's patients with ages and ailments really doesn't add useful information to what should be a biographical article. Maybe some of the information could be added to the "Career" section as prose - things like maybe "the youngest patient he helped to commit suicide was a 21-year-old quadriplegic" or "most of the patients he helped to die had cancer, MS or ALS" or whatever. Thoughts, anyone? Dawn Bard (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. A summery is more then enough. There is also a privacy concern speaking against this list. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Declaration of war Night of the Big Wind talk 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Death section

A vandal deleted some comments on the death of Kevorkian just because they were critic against him and this vandal even deleted the respective reference. But all the people cited in that section is precisely taken from that source (an article from Detroit Press) and if the source mention all those comments included the critic one deleted by the vandal, then why User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind is restoring the mutilated edition made by the vandal which is also an evation of his permanent block? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The alterations, whether they were good or bad, were not vandalism, and the user you are referring to presumably restored them because s/he thought they were a good idea. Please try to debate these changes on their merits. Xanthoxyl < 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Death section cleanup

The section on his death needs a cleanup. WP specifically forbids obituary-style death sections. Currently the section contains some nasty comments from unknown people, inserted by user ClaudioSantos. Comments? Jabbsworth (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: User:Jabbsworth has been determined to be a sock puppet of User:TickleMeister, who has an indefinite block. Xanthoxyl < 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox incorrect

The wrong infobox has been used in this article. JK is not famous as a criminal, but as a doctor/pathologist and campaigner on euthanasia. Using a "criminal" infobox is extremely POV. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please leave these comments. They are signed by me, not by your enemue, Claudio! And stop editwarring! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • The comments you took from Ned McGrath out of the Detroit Free Press is a typical case of you cherry picking. There are several other comments about his passing away that are neutral or pro, so way do you just take a starch anti? If you want to add a comment out of the DFP, it is far better to take the comment of Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano or Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper.
  • About the infobox: Kevorkian was a physician who gained notoriety because of his medical work. That this work was in conflict with the law, does not make him automatically a criminal. He was a physician in conflict with the law, not a criminal who worked as physician. I do not judge Kevorkian, as I do not know why his patients came to him. Unbearable suffering is difficult to measure.
  • The removal of the legacy section is 100% POV. The section states what the effect was of his work and trial. They praise him for raising awareness of the difficult and controversial subject of suicide, assisted suicide and unbearable suffering. And that is true. We know about his work, due to his work and trial. Otherwise it was probably still a hidden issue, conducted in total secrecy.
Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


1. I did not delete any comment favouring Kevorkian like the one from the judge Thomas Jackson, although I certainly do not agree with their comments. The previous version included just that comment favouring Kevorkian and you were not worry about that blatantly POV.
2. It is well deocumented that Kevorkian was found guilty and condemned to prison because of murder. He was found guilty and condemned for a crime, so he was found to be a criminal. That is a fact. Your opinions about that are irrelevant here in WP and would be WP:OR
3. As you also said, he gained notoriety because of his trial and condemn for murder, and it is 100% POV to remove out the infobox any mention to his trial and condemn because of murder, but that is exactly what you are doing restoring the infobox which was added by a vandal evading his permanent block. I do not the prupose but this infobox also includes a sort of jokes like "Euthanasia medicine" as an specialism of that profession, or perhaps it is not a sarcasm but a fact if it is suggesting that there only exists an "euthanasia medicine" and nothing else.
4. I believe that you are editing warring, as you insists in restore the comments and editions made by a vandal evading his permanent block, precisely imposed to forbidd any edition coming from him, but a block that is being circumvent with your help. It took 3 reverts restporing the vandal editions before you let yourself to come and write here in the discuss page, where you had to discuss first as I expresively asked.
-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
@1: I don't have a clue where you are talking about.
@2: He was in the first place a physician. We shoukld respect the neutrality of the case, and then the medical infobox prevails.
@3: Nonsense.
@4: Yep, I have informed them of your 7 reverts, 2 edits in my texts, your sockpuppet-history, our earlier clashed due to your POV-pushing and your three blocks due to editwarring and disruptive editing!
Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
2: Yes he was a physician and he was also a murderer, a criminal. Nothing new under the sun. In my editions I have never hide that Kevorkian was a medical doctor but actually you are the one trying to hide that he was also a murderer.
4: Well, I should reported you as it seems you are harassing me. But certainly I have reported your continuous vandalism by restoring the edits made by a permanently blocked account. My revertions of those editions made by a vandal evading his expulsion, those are all legitimate revertings. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You have to debate changes on their merits. If another editor likes the changes, the fact that they were originally made by a sockpuppet does not automatically mean that you are entitled to revert them if restored by a different user. Xanthoxyl < 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As it can be read above, I have exhibit reasons to reject those changes, reasons against its content/matter and not merely against its form and origin. But what you are proposing User:Xanthoxyl, namely to merely consider the content but to forget the illegitimate and disruptive origin of those changes, it seems a form to help a sockpuppeteer to circumvent his block and to evade the WP-rules. To evade a block using sockpuppets is considered a serious disruption and a serious breach against WP community trust. This sockpuppeteer has evaded his block at least 6 times using sockpuppets to fake and to deceive, in order to push his agenda pro-euthanasia. But you User:Xanthoxyl are still being so permissive with that, claiming to consider the merit of his disruptive editions and to restore them. For a change, because I've reverted those sockpuppets, you User:Xanthoxyl promptly reported me at the ANI to push blocks against me. Obviously you are likely to be so strict appealing to WP-rules against me, but you are absolutely lax with the sockpuppet and his breaching of the same rules; perhaps the reason is that you are also pro-euthanasia, which is clearly the agenda of that permanently blocked sockpuppeteer. Therefore, I just will quote the WP policy: "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user behind the accounts, and on-project exposure of all accounts and IPs used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry." from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. All my message also applies to you Night of the Big Wind. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That still do not give you the right to make changes to contributions from other editors. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Today you repeatedly accused me of vandalism because I have legitimate deleted a comment signed by the sockpuppeteer[1]. But it is legitimate to delete a comment and any action made by a sockpuppeteer evading a block which is considered a serious breach of WP trust. I have repeated it enough. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You are simply trying to use the rules against sockpuppets as a way to override consensus. If a different user seriously disagrees with your edits, you must debate the issue with them. You do not get an automatic pass to revert their actions. And please read WP:ACTIVISM. Xanthoxyl < 08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You are simply using any mean to force your point of view pro-euthanasia. That is what you call consensus. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you give any reasoning why the world should be 100% anti-euthanesia? Preferably sourced with reliable sources from outstanding persons like scientists or so. Not from rank and file persons. Your contributions are often from unveriable sources or from unknown or not-oustanding persons. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


  • I have not been permablocked. An investigation has re-opened my account, making many of the forbidden personal attacks in the collapsed section above both incorrect as well as disallowed. I invite you all to edit your comments to remove the references to vandalism and indefinite blocks so that the section can be uncollapsed, or I shall do it for you, as per wp:RPA. As an interesting aside, I see that my edits have been largely upheld by consensus, which is encouraging. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigations are included in dealing with vandalism. You were unblocked as a compromise you did to never again use sockpuppets, so the facts above are not personal attacks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cease the personal attacks

This conversation and actions on numerous admins talk pages have been in violation of WP:CIVIL, which is official Wikipedia policy. Please edit in a collegiate, collaborative manner.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Note to Georgewilliamherbert and any other patrolling sysop who feels like using the broom: the above section is full, and I mean FULL, of off-topic and ugly personal attacks. I am called a "vandal" numerous times, although I have never formally been accused of vandalism, nor have I vandalised anything. The epithet "sockpuppet" is also used numerous times (ironically by someone who was blocked himself for sockpuppeteering), and I find this quite inappropriate, inflammatory, unnecessary and off-topic. I would ask the admin reading this to spend 2 minutes cleaning up the section so that normal discourse can continue on this page without rancour. I know that if I follow the remove personal attacks policy it will immediately be reverted, and so, seeking to avoid an edit war, I ask someone with authority to implement the policy for me. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Monitoring admins: I agree that this page absolutely needs more civility. If I had my way, I'd revert the article and this talk page to before all the Legacy section disputes started. --Lexein (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Note that two of the contentious users, ClaudioSantos and Jabbsworth, have since been topic-banned from editing euthanasia-related articles (which I believe includes talk pages) until November, so maybe that will help with the civility here. I would actually also support reverting the article back to before POV sniping started, as you describe - or if not literally reverting it whole cloth, then using the older stable versions as a guide to improving the article. I'll be happy to jump in and help when the page is unprotected. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dianad286, 9 August 2011

Hello,

Trial Consultant Amy Singer, PhD now has a wiki bio. I would like to add her name to Jack Kevorkian's page as she assisted with his 3rd trial. A simple mention (with link) such as the one in CAPS below would suffice.

Trials Kevorkian was tried four times for assisting suicides between May 1994 to June 1997. With the assistance of Fieger, Kevorkian was acquitted three times. kEVORKIAN'S TEAM HIRED TRIAL CONSULTANT, [AMY SINGER] TO HELP WITH HIS 3RD AND FINAL ACQUITTAL. The fourth trial ended in a mistrial.[2] The trials helped Kevorkian gain public support for his cause. After Oakland County prosecutor Richard Thompson lost a primary election to a Republican challenger,[27] Thompson attributed the loss in part to the declining public support for the prosecution of Kevorkian and its associated legal expenses.[28]

Please make this edit for me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Diana


Dianad286 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, but can you provide a source? Or indicate which already-used source supports the assertion? Anyways, it might have to wait until the edit disputes are sorted out. WP:NODEADLINE. Please be patient ( Face-wink.svg ). --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It might not be worth mentioning. Also, Amy Singer is a new, unreviewed article that may not meet our general notability guideline. Jesanj (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Unprotected Avicennasis @ 22:14, 10 Av 5771 / 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of proposed changes to infobox, lede

I have a couple of changes to suggest that I think would improve the infobox, and since editing this article has been so contentious, I'm checking here first to see if there are any objections or alternate suggestions, etc.

  • I think saying he's known for influencing the worldwide euthanasia debate might be too sweeping a statement to be made without sources. (I'm not taking a position here about the reach of his influence, I'm just saying that such a big statement should be sourced.) In my opinion, it's probably more accurate to say that he is known for euthanasia activism and assisting the suicides of many people.
  • I think "specialism" should be changed to "specialty" because in medicine, "specialty" is much more commonly used, see Specialty (medicine). Also, his his medical specialty was pathology, not "Euthanasia Medicine" and if it were up to me I would change the infobox to reflect this.

Also, in the first sentence, "commonly known as "Dr. Death", was an American pathologist, euthanasia activist, painter, composer and instrumentalist", I'm wondering if anyone else thinks it would be appropriate to take out "painter, composer and instrumentalist"? Kevorkian was not famous for being a painter or a musician, and I think having those things in the first sentence places undue weight on them - it gives them the same weight as his euthanasia activism. His art and music are mentioned later in the lede, and that's sufficient, in my opinion. (I will admit to having a personal pet peeve about having a long laundry lists in the first sentence of any article, and that others might not share the pet peeve.)

I'd love to hear what others think. --Dawn Bard (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be made clear in the text that is influence was worldwide. I knew the name Kevorkian/Dr. Death already years before I started working on Wikipedia. And at that time I was still living in The Netherlands. His death was mentioned on most Dutch and Belgian newspapers and on the Dutch TV ((in Dutch) [2]}). There are even songs about him (for example [3]). Even his release in 2007 gave the debat a big boost, according to a Belgian website ([4]). Seeing this, I would say that the statement about his worldwide influence is not too sweeping, as long as it is properly sourced in the main text.
His art, that is more difficult. Seeing the main text I would support removal of his paint work as it is not released to the public (only derivate works of it). About his musical side I would oppose removal. His as an official published CD which was reviewed by several magazins (but I don't know their value). Secondly, it makes him a tiny bit less creepy. So I suggest to change "painter, composer and instrumentalist" to "jazz musician".
Specialism/specialty is a technicality, but it concerns a change in the infobox itself. You better bring this to the talkpage of the infobox template! Night of the Big Wind talk 14:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the article. In that light, stating: He was also a painter, composer, and musician. in the lede would sum up without undue emphasis or de-emphasis.
The Netherlands news articles would be helpful in supporting worldwide knowledge of his assisted-suicide activities, later in the article. That a song was written supports the notion that his practices were in the public eye in popular culture, not just in political, judicial, law enforcement or policy circles. --Lexein (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ You Don't Know Jack on IMDb
  2. ^ [5]
  3. ^ Lundin, Leigh (2009-04). Fairstein, Linda, ed. The Prosecution Rests. Quality of Mercy. MWA Anthologies. New York: Little, Brown & Company. pp. 221–233. ISBN 978-0316012522.  Check date values in: |date= (help)