Talk:James W. Holsinger/Archive 2

message: 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?   ∴ Therefore  talk   23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Holsinger oversaw the modernization of the five billion dollar Kentucky Medicaid program." rewrite 

message: 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.   ∴ Therefore  talk   03:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not better at 

message: 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.   ∴ Therefore  talk   19:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done -- gee, I added the kids for your sake, Maryrebecca. ;)   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: References look great.  Many thanks to both Maryrebecca and   ∴ Therefore  talk  .           --Aeschyla 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have asked to have the article peer reviewed by Wikiproject Biography.  --Maryrebecca 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.   ∴ Therefore  talk   03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: 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)
replies: text: To be clear, it isn't a question of whether we decided not to use blogs but that Wikipedia discourages them. See  Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper):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. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 happeningto 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? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice change. --Aeschyla (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of bible belt blogger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This nomination will go "nowhere"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: These are all good ideas; some condensing would improve the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: FWIW, my comment concerning condensing was an affirmation of your ideas and not a critique of the article. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career subsections