Talk:Bill Frist

message: I'm really new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I am not following protocol.  Can someone please explain to me why we would want to put the activities of three adult children in this section.  How are they relevant at all.  They have never been involved in politics.  They have no impact on his stature or non-stature.  It certainly does not reflect on his character in any way.  I am just confused.  Thanks.
(Above comment by User talk:Paradise Daytona Beach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I may have been a little overzealous in reverting you, but it looked like you were just trying to remove negative information from the article. Probably the kids criminal records are not really relevant to their father's article. It's often helpful to use edit summaries to explain why you are making a particular edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activities of the children 

message: added sourced info about the his father's founding HCA and his brother who was chairman of HCA becuase frist family and sibling were mentioned about his childhood. You can't mention some parts of his family and not all.  These are not a family of "country doctors". his father wasn't just a "doctor". That is completely misleading.  He ran the largest healthcare organization asdid his brother and frist to some degree.
this article needs to be closely watched. It is extremely suspicious that sourced info about Frist is being deleted in violation of Wiki guidlines and some family members are being mentioned while others heavily involved in the family healthcare business are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopilotwiki (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of Frist's father as a "doctor" is improper without including he founded the largest for profit hospital chain . 

message: I'm somewhat impressed that nobody made a post at the top of this talk page saying "FRIST!". Or did it get deleted already?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.191.45 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maturity level on Wikipedia 

message: This entire section needs to be rewritten, or else deleted. A section about a politician's controversial activities is almost a given, but it shouldn't be written in the tone of a ideological opponent. Particularly the Internet Gambling section has to go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.225.118 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: In less thna 20 min (suggesting a PR companies automated notifiying link to changes in this articel) Fat & Happy removed all supported and referenced information added to this page that was not in a "positive" light - specifically the added references to Frist dealings in the HCA fraud, his positions in that company during times of activites that later lead to fraud charges, activites regarding his blind trust that later showed not to be blind , his new position has a partner in a firm investing in healthcare comapnies he formerly wrote legislation for  and on and on.
This is the most aggretious sort of white washing imaginable.
The enteries and there sourced references were deleted en mass.
This is typical of what has been happening to this article and others.
Those deletions should be reversed and Fat & Happy put on watch or banned from editing. Clearly that account is a front.
Merely 20mins from changes to deletion!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.229.208 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no conspiracy.  Wikipedia has a feature called a watch list.  One subscribes to articles, and then can see on one's watchlist when they are edited.  It makes it easy to see when poorly-written violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy are added to articles, so they can be easily reverted -- Foetusized (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  active white washing of clearly supported information without supportive discussion 

message: Wow. I just clicked on "talk" to post a quick note about some egregiously partisan language in the article. I didn't realize this was a running fight.
The language in question is the addition of "liberal" and "Democratic leaning" to the phrase "government watchdog group". It's obvious that those gratuitously partisan labels are intended to discredit CREW's judgment without addressing its factual basis. As the paragraph goes on to say, Frist landed on CREW's most-corrupt list "for ethics inquiries stemming from his troubles with the FEC and an investigation by the SEC." The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are not partisan groups. This is not exactly arguable. The article itself makes it clear that there were startling irregularities in Frist's handling of his campaign finances. Besides, the article mentions individuals and organizations from all over the political spectrum, but they aren't all labeled in this fashion. CREW shouldn't be either. Those well-poisoning adjectives should be removed.
If I may speak briefly to the larger issue, Foetusized should not be defending individual corruption as though it were a partisan issue. It isn't. Bill Frist wasn't being corrupt on behalf of the Republican Party, or participating in corruption as part of a conservative agenda. Frist was playing fast and loose with his finances on his own account, for his own benefit. There's nothing ideological about that. It's just corruption. Foetusized isn't fighting against partisanship. He's injecting partisanship into a part of the article where it doesn't belong.    67.244.76.130 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively partisan language 

message: I notice that many times "controversies" listed under an individual's biography are simply partisan positions, and not seemingly controversial to their aligned party.  To selectively label party positions as controversial seems to me to be dishonest.  Many times, controversies sections appear to be contrived, and many times attached to conservative figures, while similar disputes for more liberal figures are not given a separate section entitled "Controversies."  Bill Frist has a "Controversies" section with 4 subheadings, 2 of which are political positions (internet gambling and Schiavo), 1 is an ethical action (cat experiments), and another is a campaign finance violation which was settled resulting in no legal action or punishment (which goes unmentioned in the description). 
At the same time, Frist's Senate counterpart, Tom Daschle failed to pay taxes on income received as a consultant, and took tax deductions for a charity that wasn't deemed tax deductible.  These indiscretions were innocuously placed under the "Post Senate Career" section of his biography.  
Similarly, John Boehner has a "Controversies" section attached to his biography, which describe connections to lobbyists and opposition to a Smithsonian exhibit.  At the same time, Nancy Pelosi does not have a "Controversies" section, but rather her allegations of insider trading are subtlety placed under her "Post-Speakership Role" section.  
I believe this reflects a double standard found all too commonly within Wikipedia articles.  The term "Controversies" violates neutrality to begin with, and many articles seem to hold varying definitions of what is deemed controversial and whether or not this constitutes the need for a separate section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.179.229 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Controversies" Sections 

message: I have just reorganized and condensed the article. It needed it; the article was disjointed and contained a ton of unsourced material. The article still needs a bunch more sources, which is unfortunate given that it has been tagged since 2014. Some of its cited sources are not reliable. Frist's Senate elections and career could use additional attention. Even after these improvements, the article still does not meet the requirements for B-class, so I have reclassified it as C-class. SunCrow (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: The article on Theranos lists Bill Frist among the men brought onto the Board of Directors by George Schulz, but there is nothing in this article about his involvement. Given that he is supposed to have taken a degree in health care policy at Princeton before going to Harvard Medical School, he must have been one of the few people on that board able to understand what Theranos was doing. Has he commented in public on this? NRPanikker (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, there were not many people on the board with a medical background. DKEdwards (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theranos 

message: Bill Frist was targeted in the 2003 ricin letters. I was surprised this isn't noted anywhere on this page. Maybe someone could add it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.140.90.186 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 Ricin Letters