Talk:Michael Baden

HBO

Sorry, I did not get permission from HBO (although I cited the source). I created a brief stub instead with the source materials linked to it.O&A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.59.229 (talk • contribs)

I added Dr. Baden's O&A Appearence. --24.131.94.19 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterization Of Events

Constant additions/reversions by Vcuttolo use the word "fired" or "firing" when dealing with Baden. Baden was removed from his posts by not being reappointed or not serving out preliminary trial periods. These are inaccurate uses of the term "fired" and are not used in the references. Hence, the references have been deleted. Suggestions of COI are also inappropriate as I have merely cleaned up the references. Suggest a lighter tone and less stridence on the part of Vcuttolo to insist on editorially highlighting Baden's faults (of which there are many). Andreldritch (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am taking the characterization directly from the sources provided. The New York Times and New York magazine are very reliable sources. You should not remove anything taken from a reliable source on the basis of your personal opposition. If you have a source which contradicts the New York Times and New York magazine, you may add that information to the article, provided that it comes from reliable sources, which you also need to include in your edit. As per Wikipedia's guide, your own reporting doesn't count; publish a book if you disagree with reliable sources.

Furthermore, you removed far more information than you disputed, and removed the New York Times and New York magazine sources as well. This should not be done without a very good explanation, and none was provided. Vcuttolo (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And I added NBC as another source. It uses "fired" for both the NYC and Suffolk positions he was removed from. Vcuttolo (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I just added The Daily Beast as one more reference. They use "fired" for NYC and "dismissed" for Suffolk, so I lightened the Suffolk wording when I added the source, in deference to you. Vcuttolo (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times specifically states that "Mayor Koch, apparently responding to complaints received from one of the city's five District Attorneys and from the Health Commissioner, announced yesterday that he would not make permanent the appointment of Dr. Michael M. Baden as Chief Medical Examiner. Dr. Baden was appointed provisionally a year ago and the appointment would

have become permanent yesterday, making the job his until he retired from it. He will now revert to deputy chief medical examiner." That is not firing, that is "not approving an appointment." This needs to be rephrased to keep with the reference, which is arguably definitive. The New York magazine quote states "Koch demoted Baden in August 1979, replacing him with Elliot Gross." Again, neither of these primary sources say "fired" and in fact indicate not being fired. The NBC reference was written more than 30 years after the fact, and does not include an author byline, which makes it suspect. The Daily Beast piece was written some 40 years after the fact, and does not deal with the specifics of the removal, as the Times article does. I will again change the phrasing from fired to removal and controversy, my initial post, and leave your references in place. Andreldritch (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the Washington Post as one more source that says he was "fired" from the NYC position....A more careful reading of the newspapers of the time will show that city regulations forced Koch to dismiss Baden in stages, but the man was fired. As to Suffolk, I think "dismissed" works fine, especially in light of how it all played out, but I want to reiterate that New York magazine said he had been fired from there. Vcuttolo (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I added as a source the legal ruling on Baden vs. Koch which characterized Baden's removal as a "firing". Vcuttolo (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the document you posted does not use the term "fired." The sources I have added do not use the term fired. The two articles by the NYTimes, arguably the only sources covering the actual event and not relating it as a subtext to Epstein, state that it was about him being removed by not being appointed. He was removed amid controversy, that is a fact. That it was considered firing is not a fact, especially since Koch took pains to remove him without having to explain it (i.e. getting fired). We need to keep Wikipedia accurate, and the relevant documents do not state he was fired.Andreldritch (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources I added absolutely say he was fired. There are now a long list of sources using the word "fired". Koch had to navigate legally, but eventually Baden sued Koch for firing him, and the court used the term "fired" when addressing the situation; I included the court ruling as a source as well. Whatever you mean by "controversy", if you will not get into it further in the article - and it is probably more information than his Wikipedia bio needs - than mentioning "controversy" makes little sense. He was let go, period. In other words, he was fired. Go ask the Washington Post, NBC, the judge who heard the case, the Daily Beast, New York magazine, and every other source that said he was fired. He was fired. Vcuttolo (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please cite the passage (paragraph, clause) in your openjurist ref where the judge who heard the case uses the term "fired." Andreldritch (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubles

A lot of things are mentioned twice (position in NY state, membership in the Kennedy panel). Is one time not enough?--Kriddl (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)