Talk:James W. Holsinger/Archive 2

"Holsinger oversaw the modernization of the five billion dollar Kentucky Medicaid program." rewrite
I deleted this sentence. Just how did he do this? His statement says,"by improving technology, care and benefit management, and thus maximizing the number of individuals being cared for as well as improving the quality of care." This is not encyclopedic; it's utterly without substance. I bet there are one or two patients in Kentucky who may question the term "maximize." I don't have access to the article listed as the other source for this non-encyclopedic statement. Could someone please quote from it so we can see how better to reword this? Or else we should just keep this statement out entirely and/or research contrary opinions on this matter. Thoughts?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should leave it as you have written it. I don't want to perform any more research for this article.--Maryrebecca 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Introduction and Bio
This reads well.  &#8756; Therefore  talk , thanks for your efforts. --Aeschyla 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I think I'm pretty much done. But I like to re-read it to tweak here and there.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  00:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have come to the conclusion that you, Therefore, are better at this than I am (even if you end the occasional sentence with a preposition-- how did you know that was another pet peeve?). I think your shortening is fabulous.


 * A few minor edits:
 * 1. If you think the article I found is not able to take down the information on Hope Springs, then are you willing to change it a bit? I think phrase "his church" makes it sound like he started it or is the minister.  Could we change it to "the church to which he belongs"?  I know it is longer.


 * Feel free to change -- makes it clearer.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Holsinger has had 2 gay friends from Lexington write about the medical care he has helped them receive (he did not treat them himself).  In the opening paragraph of Views on homosexuality we mention the lesbian coworker, but then not again in the text.  Could we add information from each of these friends in the paragraph about supporters?


 * Let me look at that. Maybe I'll move the co-worker comment below. However, I'd suggest against saying that he is willing, as a doctor, to treat or get treatment for gays. That is really damning him with faint praise. Yes there are extremist, unprofessional, repudiated medical doctors who refuse to do so, but I don't believe anyone nor the article suggests that he is a rabid homophobe for which such a comment would be required to counter-balance. But if you believe that this is needed then feel free to add.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. I disagree with removing the Master award. I read in the Wikipedia article that membership is from "United States, Canada, Central and South America, and Japan.... Fellowship and Mastership in American College of Physicians are the organization's way of noting outstanding achievement in internal medicine. Fellows are recommended by their peers, endorsed by their local chapter leadership, and reviewed by a national credentials subcommittee. Masters are nominated from among the Fellows of ACP for annual election to this highly selective group."  So it is 41 doctors that year.  I think that is very important.


 * Please re-add! But don't you think the extra "his peers...." is neither necessary nor sourced?  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. I like the new information about his father in the stem cell section, although I miss the fluff information about his parents in Early life.  Did you hear his 98 year old mother talk about how proud she is on NPR?  I think she might be sad that she is not more important on the page! :)


 * I'm sympathetic, but that is really not encyclopedic in nature.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, --Maryrebecca 00:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite (again) of Judicial Council

 * Can I throw open the flood gates again with this article? I was looking for information about Hope Springs, but found this article instead.  I thought the three, not two, cases were discussed in a completely different light.--Maryrebecca 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Maryrebecca for the new article. I will read it and see if another edit of these few sentences is needed. I will post any suggested changes here first. --Aeschyla 00:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which article are you referring to? Please provide a link.


 * Please note my concerns about expanding the Hope Church sentence, above. Thanks!  &#8756; Therefore  talk  00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the link. I lost it when copying Maryrebecca's statement from above.  I have made the link live.  --Aeschyla 01:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good article from a partisan source. Absolutely usable as a reliable source as long as it is clear that it comes from a conservative viewpoint. I'm unsure what should be added to the article -- it doesn't appear to contradict the section. If you want, we can add the reference to the statement that "he decisions shouldn't be read as Holsinger's personal views because the council does not have the power to establish church law and lacked the discretion to rule otherwise." Isn't that the thrust of what it is saying? How would you like to incorporate it (hopefully without requiring to add additional counter-balancing opinions)? Thanks!  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is, that we have the paragraph broken into three simple sections: Statement of facts (2 sentences -- could even be shorter). Defense -- 1 sentence. Balance -- 1 sentence.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While doing research on this project, I came across many partisan sites -- liberal Methodist orgs -- that criticize the decision saying it was couched in the Discipline while ignoring other parts of the same. And many conservative Methodist orgs that laud the decision. The length of the section will re-grow to insure balance between these two camps. But I'm more than open to your suggestions how to incorporate.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  01:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only two changes that are not partisan but relevant factual information:


 * added sentence at end of paragraph which gives context to this committee, shows the split in the church, and shows Holsinger in the majority opinion.


 * "The critics were largely concerned with a 1991 white paper he wrote titled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality for a committee in the United Methodist Church reviewing its position that homosexuality violates Christian teaching.[27] In the paper, Holsinger discusses homosexuality from a purportedly medical standpoint.[28][27] But the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, the main writer for the committee, said Holsinger imposed his views of homosexuality in the report.[27] According to Wogaman, Holsinger resigned after he anticipated that the committee was preparing to support the moral dignity of unpromiscuous homosexuality.[27] The committee's recommendation to change the church law was rejected by the General Conference in 1992, 1996,2000, and 2004."


 * Changed sentence about what court ruled on, which is also supported by the Judicial council rulings on the UMC website.


 * "Critics have also expressed concerns about Holsinger's leadership of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the highest court of the Church. In 2005, the court defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister, and in a separate case ruled that pastors have the final say as to who becomes members, and in this situation the pastor had refused to allow a gay man to join his congregation."


 * suggestions? --Aeschyla 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry having trouble with a very slow connection and previewing my comments. fixed last blockquote.  --Aeschyla 01:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna take this one at a time. First:"The committee's recommendation to change the church law was rejected by the General Conference in 1992, 1996,2000, and 2004." Unless you have an additional source besides the American Spector, that isn't what the article states. Here is what you can add:"The committee's recommendation to change the church law was rejected by the General Conference in 1992."Please quote from the article the other years -- the article is simply going through other events, such as Clinton's speech.


 * I would like to hear from you how you think this adds to the article about Holsinger per se? Was he a member of the General Conference who voted on this? Did the vote explicitly state that it backed Dr. Holsinger? I will research this further because I know that the Discipline does address homosexuals in a positive manner (not whether they can be ministers). So this section will expand accordingly. Give me time to evaluate the other suggestion.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why include it? I think it is important to know why he wrote this white paper. why was the committee asked to study it?  what did the church do with the recommendations from the committee (that holsinger resigned from)?  They rejected the committee's opinions over and over again (even with Hillary Clinton (a united methodist) giving a talk to the General Conference.  The committee did not represent the majority view.  The committee did not operate in a bubble.  It was working for the General Conference.  This one sentence provides context.


 * As for the dates, you are half right. It says it was rejected in 1992 and 1996 ("But once again, the church declined to change its position."), but it also says "whose positions on homosexuality have been debated at nine General Conferences of the church over the last 35 years."  The conference meets every 4 years and the code still does not currently support unpromiscuious homosexuals. So logically it rejected in 2000 and 2004.  Do I have a source? I sure wish I did and I am getting really really cross with my really bad internet connection this week(2 minutes to refresh this page!).  So no, I cannot do any research.  So I will simply sign off on this issue and let you decide how to handle my suggestion.  --Aeschyla 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough -- I added this:"The church never adopted the committee's recommendations." along with the American Spectator reference.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I like your very tidy summary. --Aeschyla 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And just modified it to read: The church never adopted the committee's recommendations but continues to struggle with the issue.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As for your second recomendation:"ruled that pastors have the final say as to who becomes members" I have no problem with adding that as that is how the council couched the decision. I will be looking for, then, those who disagreed with the rationalization.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see this site for why many objected to the manner of the decision -- in particular "is solely responsible" is controversial. If you want to add the court's rationalization then we will need to balance it with criticism of same. The way the section reads now it only describes the effects of the decision.   &#8756; Therefore  talk  02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I so need to have been a mathematician and studied logic. I won't argue.  And I definitely do not want this to get longer as you shortened it quite nicely.  So let it lie.  As a scientist, I have spent my life being exact, and I am certaintly not used to this way of thinking.  It has been educational.  --Aeschyla 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not better at
Maryrebeccca said,"I have come to the conclusion that you, Therefore, are better at this than I am (even if you end the occasional sentence with a preposition-- how did you know that was another pet peeve?)" I don't agree. You folks did the hard part -- putting together all the information (though I think I added an item or two along the way). Editing is easier particularly if you are coming at it cold. Some of us (me too) find it difficult to edit our own work.

It was easy to guess you don't like ending a sentence with a preposition -- my mom (a reading teacher) corrected my grammar all the time. However, (sorry mom), that rule doesn't hold any more -- if it every really did. I mean, I do try to avoid them, particularly in long sentences, but it is OK to do so on occasion. Great quote from Churchill:"When an editor dared to change a sentence of Churchill's that appeared to end inappropriately with a preposition, Churchill responded by writing to the editor, 'This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put.'" Thanks for the kind thoughts.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  03:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template
I changed the infobox to use the "Office holder" template. I recommend when Dr. Holsinger is confirmed (or appointed in a recess) the template be changed to "US Cabinet official" which would then only include the Surgeon General information.  &#8756; Therefore  talk  19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the new format of the box, but it seems really long to me. Could we remove the degrees that he earned and only have the Alma mater since the degrees are mentioned in the text? Do we need to include the children?  I looked at some other office holders (Cheney, Gore, Bush) and did not see children included. --Maryrebecca 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done -- gee, I added the kids for your sake, Maryrebecca. ;)  &#8756; Therefore  talk  20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I have asked to have the article peer reviewed by Wikiproject Biography. --Maryrebecca 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea! We've worked through all the controversies and have arrived at a consensus and a fine article. Hats off to everybody -- particularly (alpha order) Aeschyla, Maryrebecca and OsteopathicFreak, the three editors who created the bulk of the page content.   &#8756; Therefore  talk  03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

reads like a resume --Rich Peterson

Bishops rejected the decision
The New York Times article cited says that "the bishops rejected the decision," which is an inaccurate reflection of church law. The bishops have no such authority. I will edit it with appropriate citations from the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church. Wcsanders 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please go back and read the archives for this article. This has been carefully hashed out and the resultant information is a result of consensus, the cornerstone of Wikipedia.


 * To be clear, please read up on WP:Verification and I quote:"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.(emphasis from the page)"It is important that you take the time to read the archives and to read the page on verification. Please read up on reliable sources and no original research which discourages the use of primary sources that you are recommending. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of bible belt blogger
The reference for this quote is a blog (bible belt blogger).


 * "In any event, on November 12, 2007, according to the religion editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Holsinger was telling people that Bush plans to appoint him during the Christmas recess bypassing Senate confirmation."

Yes, this blogger is the religion editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; however, I believe that we decided months ago that blogs were not good references for this article. To me it does not matter where the blog is posted. This blog is not a part of the "Standard Edition" or one of the day's "columnists" in the print edition, both of which require a subscription to obtain on line. --Aeschyla (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear, it isn't a question of whether we decided not to use blogs but that Wikipedia discourages them. See Wikipedia:Verifiability:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It could be argued that this individual falls under the exception from the same section:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." However, this exception is eviscerated by the final statement:"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." Therefore, you are correct that this is not a reliable source and should not be used. Give me a chance to review the other, actual reliable sources, for this issue and I'll come back shortly with a suggested change. Thanks. &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are the quotes from reliable sources:"There had been widespread speculation that Bush would use a recess appointment for James Holsinger as U.S. surgeon general if the Senate were adjourned for the full two-week Thanksgiving recess.""This year, amid rumors that Bush might use the recess to appoint Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. as U.S. surgeon general, Reid kept the Senate technically in session."So, I suggest changing these two sentences from:"In any event, on November 12, 2007, according to the religion editor for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Holsinger was telling people that Bush planned to appoint him during the Thanksgiving recess bypassing Senate confirmation. On November 16, 2007, the Senate Majority Leader announced he would keep the Senate running during the recess by convening it several times, thereby precluding this from happening"to read:"On November 16, 2007, CBS News and the LA Times reported that due to rumors that Holsinger would be recess appointed during the two week Thanksgiving break, the Senate Majority Leader announced he would keep the Senate running during the recess by convening it several times, thereby precluding that option." Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice change. --Aeschyla (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of detail in confirmation process
User:KarlFrei suggests deleting this part of the confirmation process section:"According to one source, the 'prospects for confirmation appear dim' though he retains the support of several Republicans and the White House. The president may recess appoint him into office.[29] However, the president for a free market think tank,[30] said a recess appointment would not be a good idea: 'The surgeon general should not be a divisive position.'[31]"with the explanation: "Deleted excessive details". I agree that the first sentence is probably redundant although it also balances the idea that the nomination is in trouble by emphasizing that Holsinger still retains some support, particularly from the President. The final statement is putting forward the idea that a recess appointment would be divisive. Possibly that goes without saying? I.e., that all recess appointments by their nature are divisive. Or is a recess appointment of the Surgeon General, one that is supposed to be a non-partisan, professional position particularly divisive and thereby notable? On the other hand, Joycelyn Elders, Clinton's SG, who supports Holsinger, said that SG appointments have become almost routinely controversial in the last 20 odd years. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest changing"In October 2007, Scripps Howard News Service reported that the nomination was in trouble. The Senate committee was waiting for Holsinger to answer follow-up questions from the July confirmation hearing. According to one source, the 'prospects for confirmation appear dim' though he retains the support of several Republicans and the White House. The president may recess appoint him into office.[29] However, the president for a free market think tank,[30] said a recess appointment would not be a good idea: 'The surgeon general should not be a divisive position."to read:"In October 2007, Scripps Howard News Service reported that the nomination was in trouble although he retains the support of several Republicans and the White House. The Senate committee was waiting for Holsinger to answer follow-up questions from the July confirmation hearing. The president may recess appoint him into office which one source felt would be devisive." Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the change, but think that we should drop the "which one source felt would be divisive." Seems pretty obvious. Also it might be a good idea to link to "recess appointment" for those who do not know what it is. --Aeschyla (talk)   01:57, 20 November 2007


 * Good point -- I deleted all references to divisiveness. I also did some copyediting and shortening. The section is much improved -- thanks to Aescyla's & KarlFrei's suggestions. &#8756; Therefore | talk 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This nomination will go "nowhere"?
This nomination by President Bush has not been made as a "recess appointment" between Christmas and January time when most Senators were away to home states. I presume that the office remains open until Jan. 2009. . . do you agree?

Timothyjshaw (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)timothyjshaw


 * Steven K. Galson is the acting Surgeon General, so it is not strictly speaking "open". Holsinger may still be confirmed by the Senate or recess appointed by Bush or another nominee may be announced. &#8756; Therefore | talk 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Career subsections
Good Samaritan Foundation and Asbury were only non-paying boards that Holsinger volunteered to chair. Do you think that they need their own headings in his career section? Are they of equal importance as the 30 year VA and Army jobs? If we decide to keep Good Samaritan Foundation and Asbury separated from his other jobs, could they be merged into a section on Board Memberships? If we make that heading, he has sat on 50-60 boards (some of which he chaired) over his career, which are all listed on his CV. Or we could make a heading about his religious life, including these boards and other relevant information?--Maryrebecca (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These are all good ideas; some condensing would improve the article. &#8756; Therefore | talk 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the new career and religion sections and new photographs. I will work on condensing next.--Maryrebecca (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my comment concerning condensing was an affirmation of your ideas and not a critique of the article. &#8756; Therefore | talk 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)