→Time article is insufficient source for citation of medical misdiagnosis: diagnosis follows detection |
207.29.40.2 (talk) |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
::::An important point. If I had been paying closer attention, I would never have added it (and reverted it back into the article after it was removed). Can you hear that? That's the sound of me kicking myself... [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
::::An important point. If I had been paying closer attention, I would never have added it (and reverted it back into the article after it was removed). Can you hear that? That's the sound of me kicking myself... [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Another important point is that many abdominal and pelvic cancers are detected when the person goes to a doctor for an unrelated reason and gets a thorough physical exam. The relatively short time between visiting a doctor in Indonesia for "indigestion" and visiting a cancer specialty hospital in the United States suggests that someone detected a mass, which often is the first sign. Perhaps credit for detecting the cancer belongs to the doctor in Indonesia. Formal diagnosis comes ''after'' detection. Ovarian and uterine cancers often are diagnosed soon after the woman is examined for nonspecific complaints, not because diagnosis is delayed, but because the woman receives a physical exam, often the first in many years. In the US women are advised to get an annual physical exam, but many do not follow that advice. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
:::::Another important point is that many abdominal and pelvic cancers are detected when the person goes to a doctor for an unrelated reason and gets a thorough physical exam. The relatively short time between visiting a doctor in Indonesia for "indigestion" and visiting a cancer specialty hospital in the United States suggests that someone detected a mass, which often is the first sign. Perhaps credit for detecting the cancer belongs to the doctor in Indonesia. Formal diagnosis comes ''after'' detection. Ovarian and uterine cancers often are diagnosed soon after the woman is examined for nonspecific complaints, not because diagnosis is delayed, but because the woman receives a physical exam, often the first in many years. In the US women are advised to get an annual physical exam, but many do not follow that advice. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Article Should Include Evidence of Dunham's University Attendance in Washington State in 1961== |
|||
There is substantial, documented evidence, including a transcript, that Dunham attended the University of Washington in August 1961. You may not like the source (WND) but a transcript is a transcript: |
|||
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106018 |
Revision as of 23:05, 20 January 2010
![]() | Ann Dunham has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
"Native European" etc discussion re Ann Dunham's father
An IP editor would like to expand the Ann Dunham page to include purported details about Ann's father's "native European" ancestry. I have reverted twice, and would appreciate some comment. My reasons for reverting:
- No documentation is provided for the claims in this expansion.
- "Native European" is not a commonly-used phrase for people, but mostly used for plants, parasites, etc.
- Not necessary for this article, which is long enough. If it belongs anywhere (with documentation, etc.), it would be in the article about Ann Dunham's father.
Bellagio99 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you didn't understand "native European ancestor" wasn't a plant or parasites or the most recent ancestor born in Europe. I'll add an article explaining it but you read the references, the Chicago Sun-Times mentions all the facts you. Fulmoth Kearney has been mentioned in one then one speech by President Obama and I don't know about in the United States, but within Ireland, it's of huge interest and Wikipedia English isn't suppose to be from a purely American POV. 66.185.217.157 (talk)
- It is certainly interesting, but none of those sources appear to mention Ann Dunham. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many sources within this article, including the ancestry section, doesn't mention Ann Dunham specifically. That's not really a reason. Ann Dunham's Irish roots are discussed quite a lot in Ireland and worth a mention. To address the other points, the New England Historic Genealogical Society (sited within this article) states so. It's one line about European ancestry in a ancestry section. 66.185.217.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
- Most, if not all of the sources in this article, discuss Ann Dunham. If they don't, then please bring these sources to my attention. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many sources within this article, including the ancestry section, doesn't mention Ann Dunham specifically. That's not really a reason. Ann Dunham's Irish roots are discussed quite a lot in Ireland and worth a mention. To address the other points, the New England Historic Genealogical Society (sited within this article) states so. It's one line about European ancestry in a ancestry section. 66.185.217.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
- It is certainly interesting, but none of those sources appear to mention Ann Dunham. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
← I agree with Bellagio's reverts and the arguments stated here by him and Viriditas. This is not an article on Ann Dunham's ancestry, it's her overall biography. Indeed, I think there is more emphasis here even now on ancestry than is warranted - I would like to shorten the section, remove the chart, and point to the individual articles on her parents where the reconstructed charts could go. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done - I think this brings the weight of her ancestry into better balance here. See Stanley Armour Dunham#Ancestry and Madelyn Dunham#Ancestry for detailed charts which are more appropriate there as is the more detailed material on each of their most recent European-born ancestors. I think this should satisfy the interests of American as well as non-US readers, in keeping with general policies. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz/talk 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
posthumous Mormon baptism
A paragraph has been added regarding a posthumous baptism by the Mormon church. Seems to me that this does not belong in this biography, as it is not reflective of her own beliefs or decisions. Posthumous studying of her anthropological work is relevant, because it is of her work - but this baptism really seems to have nothing to do with her. Thoughts? Tvoz/talk 06:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the material that was added by User:98.14.216.29:
She was posthumously baptized by the Mormon church during Barack Obama's presidential campaign.[1]
- Can anyone discuss why the Mormon church would do this? What does it mean for them to baptize her without her or her family's permission? The original article can no longer be accessed so I can't read it. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- A copy can be found here. It would appear that it was done without consent of any family member, and the Mormons have come under criticism for this sort of proxy baptism in the past. I'd be interested in seeing of there was ever a follow-up to their "we'll look into it" statement, but this doesn't seem to have much encyclopedic value here. Perhaps if there is an article or section elsewhere on the issues with proxy baptism, this could go as an example. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- And another which says that the church removed Dunham's name. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's interesting. I have no idea if it is appropriate for this article or not, but if it is, I would expect more coverage on the topic than just two sources. Viriditas (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to see this item was removed. In relation to posthumous or vicarious baptisms, the likelihood is that this a case of straw man rhetoric. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has specific guidelines outlining the appropriateness of performing family proxy ordinances.
in the article posted on Wikipedia (Baptism for the Dead) we read, "..To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of performing temple ordinances only for direct ancestors of Church members. For example, the Church is in the process of removing sensitive names (such as Jewish Holocaust victims) from its International Genealogical Index (IGI)."
It is also important to recognize the spirit with which the LDS people approach Baptism for the Dead. When a proxy baptism is performed it is clearly understood that it is completely predicated upon the principle of free agency, or the deceased individual's acceptance of the ordinance. As the Church teaches, "God will force no man to Heaven." For this reason it is important to recognize that while it is against Church policy to perform proxy baptisms for individuals not directly related to a Church member, there are likely to be cases of well-intending Church members performing baptisms which might contradict this Church policy. But from my observations, the Church is moving very quickly and sincerely to inform members of these policies and to remove names which might be inappropriately insensitive to others (as is the case with Holocaust victims).
From this perspective and context it should be clear that listing information (true or speculative) on whether a famous individual has been a recipient of proxy LDS work is in many cases simply inflammatory. If an individual has a sincere concern concerning whether a deceased person has received proxy work, they would be better off expressing their concerns by contacting the Church directly (lds.org) and communicating their concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.147.225 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Time article is insufficient source for citation of medical misdiagnosis
I noticed the part of the article mentioning stomach pain after dinner, and a diagnosis of indigestion by a local doctor. Since none of us were there in the consultation room, it seems that inclusion of this anecdote is overweighted. There's an inference of negligence in my mind, against the physician that saw her, and maybe as well some inference about medical attention in general in Indonesia. There's also some sense of proximate cause resulting in death due to an untimely diagnosis of cancer. Without a finding of fact by a medical board, or an opinion by a medical professional that can be cited, it is irresponsible to include this information from a Time magazine article. For all we really know, that incidence may have been in part indigestion, or probably the doctor's opinion would have been totally discounted, and a second opinion sought. See where this goes sliding into conjecture within seconds? Stick to relevent proveable facts, please. 121.1.18.242 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dear 121, Thank you for your comment. While Time is usually considered a reliable source in WP, I took your comment seriously and changed "misdiagnosed" to "diagnosed". However, As the phrase is brief, I don't think it is overweighted, and it does seem to be the beginning of a sad sequence. As my wife had uterine cancer (fortunately, caught early), I took especial note of this section. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than Time, and there is nothing wrong with the term. I suggest we take this to WP:MED for review. I will notify them immediately. Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've temporarily removed it because the Time source says "diagnosed". However, other sources say "misdiagnosed" and somehow that source was used instead. I'll take this to WP:MED and go with whatever they decide. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's more than Time, and there is nothing wrong with the term. I suggest we take this to WP:MED for review. I will notify them immediately. Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would not apply the term "misdiagnosed", which implies negligence, unless this has been found on official enquiry. Who says the she did not also have indigestion? JFW | T@lk 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I used an article by David Maraniss in The Washington Post as the original source for this claim, and I see now, from the discussion above, that it was a red flag. I'm not clear on how a link to Time magazine ended up in its place. I'm pretty upset that I failed to see this until now. Viriditas (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- If some sources call her "indigestion" a misdiagnosis, the most that can be said here is "X call it a misdiagnosis". It is entirely possible to have an abdominal cancer and indigestion, and most cases of indigestion have nothing to do with cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- An important point. If I had been paying closer attention, I would never have added it (and reverted it back into the article after it was removed). Can you hear that? That's the sound of me kicking myself... Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another important point is that many abdominal and pelvic cancers are detected when the person goes to a doctor for an unrelated reason and gets a thorough physical exam. The relatively short time between visiting a doctor in Indonesia for "indigestion" and visiting a cancer specialty hospital in the United States suggests that someone detected a mass, which often is the first sign. Perhaps credit for detecting the cancer belongs to the doctor in Indonesia. Formal diagnosis comes after detection. Ovarian and uterine cancers often are diagnosed soon after the woman is examined for nonspecific complaints, not because diagnosis is delayed, but because the woman receives a physical exam, often the first in many years. In the US women are advised to get an annual physical exam, but many do not follow that advice. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- An important point. If I had been paying closer attention, I would never have added it (and reverted it back into the article after it was removed). Can you hear that? That's the sound of me kicking myself... Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- If some sources call her "indigestion" a misdiagnosis, the most that can be said here is "X call it a misdiagnosis". It is entirely possible to have an abdominal cancer and indigestion, and most cases of indigestion have nothing to do with cancer. --Una Smith (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Article Should Include Evidence of Dunham's University Attendance in Washington State in 1961
There is substantial, documented evidence, including a transcript, that Dunham attended the University of Washington in August 1961. You may not like the source (WND) but a transcript is a transcript:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106018
- ^ Fletcher Stack, Peggy (2009-05-05). "Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church". Salt Lake Tribune.