User:M0318/sandbox

"Evaluating Articles and Sources"

 * For the most part all the information in the article was relevant to medicalization. What distracted me was the caption under the picture of the doctor and his patient. It is as if they are trying to imply that the patients role is only to be a "consumer" and that the only thing the doctor cares about is to make money off of him.
 * In my opinion under the "Professionals, patients, corporations and society" section of the article, the article makes a strong push to imply that doctors, corporation, and society are only interested in profiting from patients and do not care about the patients getting better.
 * They viewpoint that seems to be the most overrepresented is that of the pharmaceutical companies and their role in medicalization.
 * All the citation that have links to them do work. The links that are associated to journal / online articles do support their claims. However, they referenced several books and did not provide us with exact pages from where they are citing, therefore, in order to verify if the source supports their claim one would have to have prior knowledge of the book or read the book.
 * All the fact that they referenced do contain the citations. However, they have made it hard to easily confirm their fact. They contain information from academic online journals and books, however, for the books they did not provide page numbers.
 * Several of the article that were referenced where from the 1970's and 1980 which are several decades old. I am sure there has been more current work done on those topics.
 * There was several comments and conversation about rewriting this article dating back from 2011-2013. No, action has been taken in that regard. The most recent conversation took place in 2015, however, it was not insightful and the user only used profanity.
 * This article is rated low to mid-level of importance. It is part of three WikiProjects including; WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Medicine, and WikiProject Nursing.
 * The only difference that I noticed is that we did not go to far in depth about medical corporation and medicine in class and the article made it a point to imply that corporations and doctors have a very big role in medicalization.

Jerome Caja
Currently, I am unavailable to assign myself an article. If I have the opportunity I would like to work on Jerome Caja's article. As of right now his article has very little information on it. I would like add more about his career for example, what is his most famous work, where has his work been displayed, has his work won any awards or recognition from his peers, and finally where he found inspiration to draw some of his "unique" art. The sources that I'm planning on using are:
 * "Book" Corpora, Craig Michael, & Art History. (2014). Little lovelies : Queer worldmaking and disidentification in the art of Jerome Caja. San Francisco State University.
 * "Article" Strauss, D. (1989). San Francisco: Jerome Caja. Artforum International, 27(8), 171.
 * "Book" Avena, T. (1994). Life sentences: Writers, artists, and AIDS. San Francisco: Mercury House.
 * "Article" Sherwood, Katherine. (2006). Art, Medicine, and Disability. Radical History Review, 2006(94), 191.

James D. Phelan
After reviewing the wikipedia article on James D. Phelan I noticed that it does not mentioned a single thing about the San Francisco plague. I find that to be quite shocking considering that he was the mayor during that time period. I am planning on adding a section named the "San Francisco plague." Under this section I will be discussing his and his administrations response to the plague outbreak in the Chinese community. Furthermore, I will be discussing how his views on Asian immigration might have influenced his response or there lack of. The sources that I will be utilizing to gather my information are as followed:
 * Barde, R. (2003). Prelude to the Plague: Public Health and Politics at America's Pacific Gateway, 1899. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 58(2), 153-86.
 * Skubik, M., & Cornford, Daniel. (2002). Public Health Politics and the San Francisco Plague Epidemic of 1900–1904, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
 * Risse, G., & Ebrary. (2012). Plague, fear, and politics in San Francisco's Chinatown. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
 * Kalisch, P. (1972). The Black Death in Chinatown: Plague and Politics in San Francisco 1900-1904. Arizona and the West, 14(2), 113-136.
 * Barde, R. (2004). Plague in San Francisco: An Essay Review. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 59(3), 463-470.

San Francisco Plague
During his tenure as the Mayor of San Francisco, Phelan and his administration were faced with dealing with the San Francisco plague of 1900-1904 that infected the San Francisco Chinatown community. Prior to the plague outbreak in Chinatown, Phelan was an active advocate for improving public health in San Francisco. On October 25, 1897, Phelan addressed the California health board in San Francisco and stated that government intervention was needed in order to establish healthier living conditions. He argued that public health departments required more funding to help improve living conditions. Furthermore, in 1899, Phelan continued his strong advocacy for public health and the prevention of disease through city measures. Later that year, in a shocking move, he instead opted to support an $18-million-dollar bond to create a new hospital, schools, and city parks. On September 1899, Phelan and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors further defunded the cities health department. The San Francisco health department was only allocated $155,960 with two-thirds of that going towards the operation of municipal hospital. Shortly after, the health board members were released from their duties due to political in-house fighting and excessive patronage. After being sworn in, Phelan's new health department board members discovered that the department was broke and that within the first six months of fiscal year 1899 - 1990 the department had already spent the majority of its budget. Through the defunding and mishandleling of the department, Phelan and his administration left the health department and the city ill-prepared for what was looming around the corner.

On June 1900 San Francisco's city hall received the news that Joseph J. Kinyoun had instituted a travel ban in hopes of preventing the spread of the plague to the rest of the country. Mayor Phelan confirmed the news by stating that Kinyoun had notified him personally about the travel ban. Phelan went on to blame the federal court ruling that restricted the ability of the local government to deal with the plague. In order to improve sanitary living conditions in Chinatown, Governor Gage proposed to hire inspectors and workers to eradicate the plague. Governor Henry Gage requested for Mayor Phelan and his administration to match the states $25,000 contribution. However, Phelan informed Governor Gage that the city did not have the resources to match the states contribution. After meeting with Governor Gage, Phelan and his Board of Supervisors agreed to contribute $6,000. On the summer of 1901, Mayor Phelan publicly announced that he would not run for another term. "During his final address before leaving office, Phelan praised the health board, claiming that because of its vigilance the city 'was saved from Oriental infection.'" Phelan concluded by thanking the federal government and their efforts to help the city endure the crisis.