Talk:James W. Holsinger/Archive 1

message: It would be nice to change the UK to mean University of Kentucky, and not United Kingdom. UK generally doesn't mean Un. Kentucky internationally and having that in a reference is confusing (to me anyway).
There are press releases going round about this guy so expect him to become very high profile.. Secretlondon 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: "Contrary to what is being portrayed in the media, Hope Springs Church does not nor has ever had any ministries dedicated to “cure homosexuality.” We do not have any ministries specifically targeted to gay and lesbian persons. Our mission is to reach the city of Lexington for Jesus Christ. Everyone is invited to worship with us." --Maryrebecca 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hope Springs Church press release 

message: A personal resume that you have on-hand can't be used as a source. It can't be verified. If said resume is on a web site or blog published by the subject, then limited use is allowed ("not unduly self-serving") as long as it is cited. You need to remove any information in this article that is only cited by a on-hand resume and search instead for verifiable sources. SmallRepair 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you are using the U of K on-line resume -- that is, naturally, OK. Sorry for speaking too soon. SmallRepair 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resume 

message: As I have been doing research about Holsinger, I found a webpage at the Arlington National Cemetery for James W. Holsinger.  To reduce any future confusion, I think that we should name his biography James W. Holsinger, Jr. because his father was also an army general. --Maryrebecca 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move that was done broke the gfdl by copying and pasting the content from one page to another rather than moving it properly. This makes it look like the paster wrote the entire article from scratch. I've undone the move. Thankfully no-one had edited the copy. Secretlondon 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem! It was easily fixed. Secretlondon 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Page 

message: I know I'm being obtuse, but I couldn't find this information:During his career, he served at five different hospitals starting as a Research and Education Associate, becoming a Chief of Staff, and then a Medical Center Director.  President George H. W. Bush appointed Holsinger as 13th Chief Medical Director (title changed to Undersecretary for Health in 1992) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Following Senate confirmation, on August 6, 1990 Holsinger was sworn into office by Secretary Edward Derwinski. He created the VA-DOD Contingency Hospital System, which was capable of providing 25,000 beds within 72 hours in support of America's armed forces fighting in Kuwait during the first Iraq War. He served simultaneously as Assistant to the Director for Logistics (J4) for Medical Support on the Joint Staff.
While chief medical director, he oversaw the nation's largest health care system with facilities in all 50 states.  This system served 1 million in-patients and provided 20 million out-patient visits.  Holsinger developed health care policy for 26 million veterans. in any of the external links or inline links. What is the citation for it? Thanks! SmallRepair 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned some of the information from his CV ("research and education...director" and "title change" and "director for logistics").  I looked up information about the size of VHA and the Secretary at the time on its website. I have just learned how to use the CV more than once as a reference without it being duplicated in the reference section.  I will add these references shortly. --Maryrebecca 18:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the CV and some other sources for information, but I had a questions about page numbers.  The CV is 42 pages and does anyone else want to read the entire thing?  I thought I should add the page number where the specific information was found, but I am used to MLA citations and not footnotes.  Should I have a different footnote for each different page of the CV that I used?  That seems to add a tremendous number of additional footnotes that are redundant.  Suggestions?  I would like others to suggest places for additional sources, and I will work to verify the information. --Maryrebecca 04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA information 

message: I see references to this guy "Bishop Richard Looney" who sat on the same Methodist committee as Holsinger.  I think there might be Bishops in the Methodist church.  OsteopathicFreak 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodist bishops 

message: Recent changes by Aeschyla are all unsourced. "Holsinger's beliefs are uncertain."  I don't have a problem with that, but you've got to source it.  Calling his paper a "review" is an opinion. Let's call it by the most neutral term we can find - "white paper" or just "paper" if you prefer.  No where in the document does Holsinger call it a review. OsteopathicFreak 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! :) OsteopathicFreak 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information 

message: You and I disagree about how to handle the quote from Exodus, given that they are putting words in Holsinger's mouth for their own uses.  I added the comment :Holsinger beliefs are uncertain, hoping that we can come to an agreement.  Alternatively, I am willing to state that Exodus supports Holsinger, but to remove their quote from the Wiki.  --Aeschyla 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exodus 

message: OsteopathicFreak, I see only $1000 for Mitch in your reference. Also, would it be useful to add to this section that Bush Sr. was the one who nominated him to his last big post that required senate confirmation (Under Secretary of VA)? --Aeschyla 07:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Contributions 

message: I have been looking for the birth year of Holsinger's mother.  In this research, I found an article from 1994 with the following quote: "Holsinger said he became interested in the care of veterans because his father was a career Army officer and his sister and her husband are Vietnam- era veterans."  Do you think it is relevant to place in the VA section?--Maryrebecca 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of family information 

message: Is there anything referencing his changed opinion or reinforcing his views past the early 1990s? In my experience sometimes folks state it was the best knowledge we had at the time and now I believe this, or they reiterate so there is no question they maintain a certain belief. In any case it might serve the article to reference one way or the other pr even that he has declined to comment or ? Benjiboi 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holsinger and homosexuality section 

message: I took some photographs of sites in the Lexington area that I thought would give the page some interest.  If you do not think they are appropriate, feel free to remove them.  If you think of other photographs of the Lexington area that you might be interested in having on the page, let me know and I will take another road trip.--Maryrebecca 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photographs 

message: I'm sorry if anyone felt i vandalized the holsinger page. if i violated a rule, I'm sorry. I referred to the original paper and corrented a misquotation. the version of the quote i gave came directly from the original paper. The quote, as previously edited, took a quote from another paper. but without holsinger's surrounding commentary. i simply expanded the quote to include the sentences before and after. is this vandalism?OsteopathicFreak 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just reiterate here as I have on my talk page, that it was a mistake due to a number of redflagged words in an antivandal script I use, and I didn't check the actual article carefully enough. OsteopathicFreak did NOT vandalize this page. -Superbeecat 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracias.  Glad we could sort it out.  :) OsteopathicFreak 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I'm all for re-writes and improving this article.  But these types of statements are really unsourced and opinion based.  
The discussion of Holsinger's views on homosexuality focused on his leadership in the United Methodist Church which has shown an anti-gay bias verses his public health record which has shown a neutral or slightly positive gay bais.
It's very original research to make statements regarding what his record does or doesn't show his views on gay people are. Additionally, I think its flat out not true.  But that's my personal opinion.  I don't think this article gets to make a single claim about what Holsinger's views of homosexuality, I think it just gets to record that more or less every gay-rights group in the nation has made allegations that Holsinger is not the right man for the job of surgeon general, b/c of his writings about homosexuality as represented by the 1991 paper.  Touro OsteopathicFreak T  01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed. Any criticism should be sourced. If the above section is a quotation of so-and-so, it should be stated in that fashion. Otherwise, it is OR and should be tossed.   ∴ Therefore  talk   01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I should add that he is also criticized for his involvement with his church including his vote to remove a lesbian from her post. This isn't ancient news.   ∴ Therefore  talk   02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Methodist Church is in conflict over the issue of gay/lesbian ministers.  The general conference which makes the laws has not voted to change this law.  Holsinger's leadership is in the Judicial Council not the general conference. He has never had the power to change the law banning gay ministers. --Aeschyla 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  As a summary, we should make it clear that all of the anti-gay information we have on Holsinger is from his membership in a church which clearly has anti-gay bias.  There is no evidence of anti-gay bias in his professional career in public health. -- Aeschyla 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a position on this matter. I made my comment because of this from the lede:He voted with the majority of the Judicial Council to uphold the church law to remove a lesbian pastor from her post. My point is simply that is in addition to the 1991 paper.   ∴ Therefore  talk   02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really “in addition” to the 1991 paper? If the law of the Methodist General Conference is clear on the status of homosexuality within the church, then it would appear that his service on the Methodist Judicial Council is one of making judgements “based” on their laws, not making judgements “on” their laws. All this proves is that he works within the confines of rules and makes judgements accordingly. It does not reflect either his elation or sadness in making that judgement. Kratos-to-the-demos 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not debating the issue -- I'm only stating that the criticism included his service with the Judicial Council. I take no position whether that is justified or not, only that the fact of the criticism is, well, a fact.   ∴ Therefore  talk   02:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statemetents? 

message: I am still plucking the low hanging fruit in an effort to shorten this article, but have just hit the first thing that may be controversial.  I have removed the quotes from the white paper as they take up a lot of space, and although they are informative, they can be read directly in the white paper.  At some point in the shortening effort, it is going to get tricky, so lets just keep the communication lines up. -- Aeschyla 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In such a short period of time, the editors have really made this article much more readable. Impressive. The Kentucky state government section is spot on.   ∴ Therefore  talk   04:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article shortening 

message: I don't have access to either source for this section (the AP link is dead), but I think this is sufficient to get the point across:
While Chancellor, Holsinger held a session concerning lesbian health issues at a local conference in spite of criticisms and threats by some state senators. Holsinger stated, "I think it's important to educate health-care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians." (Blackford 2002) Other officials lauded his strong support for meeting "the health needs of anyone who walks into the door".
Shortened section with most of these suggestions.  -- Aeschyla 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's Health Center 2002 

message: In the process of shortening every section by one third (or more), I am looking at the fattest section of the white paper and its criticism and defense.  I would love to see   ∴ Therefore  talk   attack this section.  He is the newest editor of this page and thus has less knowledge of previous argument that might sway how he trims it back. I would love a fresh view point. If you are up to this request, I would appreciate you posting your rewrite here first for comment.  --Aeschyla 00:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the invite and I'll do so. I now have three kids asking to be fed, so will take up this task later this evening, possibly tomorrow. I should warn, though, that my rewrite would take the entire section and make it one or two paragraphs, letting the sources speak to the details.   ∴ Therefore  talk   01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking up task.  I know this is time consuming (I really know).  I have shortened most everything else in the article, but this section will be tricky. I will enjoy seeing how you make the entire section into just 1 or 2 paragraphs. I hope you are willing to have all the editors discuss and alter your rewrite. There are also the quotes from Kennedy and Holsinger above in the "nomination" section which perhaps should be included in your rewrite. I'll look again tomorrow. The next step will be the references.  --Aeschyla 02:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Paper Criticism and Defense 

message: "Strong opposition" doesn't fit the facts. Two local, state senators protest doesn't strong protest make. Maybe in Kentucky discussing lesbian health issues is considered a brave act of courage, but every state has their local legislative kooks. SmallRepair 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong opposition? 

message: My rewrite of the section:
In 1991, Holsinger wrote a white paper entitled Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality for a committee in the United Methodist Church reviewing its position that homosexuality violates Christian teaching. In the paper, Holsinger discusses homosexuality from a purportedly medical standpoint. But the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, the main writer for the committee, said Holsinger imposed his views of homosexuality in the report. According to Wogaman, Holsinger resigned after he anticipated that the committee was preparing to support the moral dignity of
unpromiscuous homosexuality.
Supporters of Dr. Holsinger's nomination defend the paper as a review of the relevant medical literature at that time.Associated Press.  Critics said the paper reflected a pre-1970s view of human sexuality, and that it had a political agenda and wasn't a scientific paper. At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said the paper did not represent his current views and was not “an example of my scientific work.”
Some of the sources used in the original text are not reliable sources -- opinion pieces or blogs. Notice I didn't use the primary source of his confirmation testimony but referenced a secondary source's take on it. The sources, particularly the ABC News source, details the information in the paper. Although the "pipe fittings" section is, please, funny, it really is irrelevant to the article and can be seen in the source. The critics make it clear that the paper wasn't scientific as does Dr. Holsinger himself.   ∴ Therefore  talk   02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  That is what I call Occam's razor!  I wouldn't change a thing.  As far as I am concerned, save it to the article.  --Aeschyla 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think the pipe fittings are hilarious.  Have you seen Colbert or Daily show about it? Now that is funny. I think your shortening is fabulous and makes the article much easier to read.  Thank you for helping me to make this article better, I will work on the primary sources that I placed in the article tomorrow. Also, thanks for the apology. --Maryrebecca 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure just say the section will be left alone and I'll fix it all up.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. --Aeschyla 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White paper rewrite 

message: I was checking and fixing the reference, when I came to #20.  Since we have been discussing primary verses secondary sources, I wanted to ask if it is appropriate that the only source we have for Holsinger's contributions is NewsMeat. Only 42 more to go. --Maryrebecca 05:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer a better source then OpenSecrets.Org is typically used.  This is public information.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Contributions 

message: As I have been going through the references, I have now come to the religious affiliation.  If other editors were willing to remove the Hope Springs section, then I think we could remove the entire section on Religious affiliation, which would make the article even shorter.  The Judicial Council section and white paper seem completely relevant to the article because they are Holsinger's words, and have been looked at by the Senate during the confirmation hearing.  However, Hope Springs still seems guilt by association to me (even if it is not our doing).  His minister said something that got attributed to Holsinger, which his minister later said had nothing to do with Holsinger.  Holsinger's church was never discussed at the confirmation hearing, and Holsinger has never spoken about it.  The religious affiliation section is long and to me is unimportant.  We know he is a Methodist because it is in the bio box.  We could start a new page on Hope Springs (although I have no interest) and state that Holsinger is a member of the World Methodist Council with the wikilink. Thoughts?--Maryrebecca 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know my thoughts on this matter. People coming to this article will be expecting to see what the criticisms of Holsinger are. Not just what are, in the editor's point of view, justified criticisms. The onus is on you, Maryrebecca, to find a reliable source who criticizes this criticism as guilt by association.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do my best to find a reference, but I am going to finish the reference section on the page before I do any more random surfing.--Maryrebecca 20:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious affiliation 

message: Maryrebecca, I saw that you were working on references.  Are you done? --Aeschyla 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: almost. I stopped because I was hoping that some of the text would be removed. Now that the white paper has been rewritten, the references (# 51-54) have no text.  Since I have never edited this section, I am not sure what the references are suppose to be. --Maryrebecca 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give me the green light, I can fix the references. The text on this page wasn't meant to be cut and pasted without re-working the references. If someone else is talking care of this, then I'll defer.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: #16 is also weird after the text edit of Kentucky State Government.--Maryrebecca 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed it.  --Aeschyla 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Worked on the References, but missing the ABCNEWS reference.  Hope I did not step on your toes, just trying to finish up the shortening while I had time.   ∴ Therefore  talk   if you could fix that one, that would be great.  And please check the others if you get a chance.  I think I got them right. Thanks!  --Aeschyla 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is next to make the page a GA or A class article? 

message: I don't have a strong position on this but I think it would make the article more usable (besides a lot more razoring ;) ). I would push the nomination and the controversy about LGBT issues to above the Medical views. The nomination is the most important thing about Holsinger at this stage and should be more prominent. People will want to read about the controversies as there has been international coverage on the issue. Thoughts?   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should follow the section. When things are calm, give me the go ahead and I'll restructure. If you don't like it, then just revert and we can discuss further. I think in terms of chronology, this makes sense. The discussion of his views reference his nomination, which should have been mentioned by the point it is used. See what I mean?   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me. I just am not clear on how the "current event" box will work (that is not apply to the medical views).  People might hit the box and think everything below it is in flux.  --Aeschyla 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested restructuring 

message: Holsinger has consistently aired concerns about childhood obesity, pushing for a limit on junk food in schools, lobbying and educating for the promotion of exercise and improvements of school nutrition. Lexington Herald Leader. Holsinger familiar with obesity issue: He worked on subject as state official. May 26, 2007.   Economist. Enter Dr Nice Guy. May 31, 2007.   He included this as one of his highest priorities at his confirmation hearing. Thoughts?   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On obesity rewrite 

message: During his confirmation hearings, Holsinger indicated the importance of improving the ability of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to respond to emergencies.   ∴ Therefore  talk   21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, better still.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On readiness of Public Health Service Commissioned Corps rewrite 

message: I'm getting unnecessarily testy and defensive here. I'll let the page breathe a bit here and take a break. But I'll be back. ;)   ∴ Therefore  talk   21:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep breath in, deep breath out 

message: *I excised entirely the section On physician professionalism because a) it relied on a primary document and b) was in desperate need of paraphrasing. I hope someone can find a secondary source for this information. 
:This is Holsinger's most current scientific paper and was referred to in the senate hearings. As the senate hearing is public record, I would like to see it paraphrased and added back in please. However, I do not feel as strongly about this as the stem cell section.--Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to find a secondary source vs. primary. This is a simple reality of Wikipedia. Instead of me constantly quoting from them, I encourage you to read up on all the pillars of WP. Find a third party that discusses this issue and its inclusion is valid. But please paraphrase it because as it was very un-encyclopedic.   ∴ Therefore  talk   19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be added back in.  The Rules say: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses." The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Aeschyla 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is in reference to scientific arguments, but your point is well made. Include it but attempt to paraphrase the gist of his thesis. You may still want to find a third party that does in fact paraphrase it. I wouldn't include it under public health stances but maybe in his career. But I'll defer to you. My only interest in its removal was for clarity.   ∴ Therefore  talk   22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physician professionalism 

message: I reverted your changes on this matter for several reasons. 
* It is not our place to directly "disprove" a third party's assessment. That is both a violation of WP:V and WP:OR and, imo, WP:NPOV. 
* "Reject" is a fine alternative to "rebut" -- reject isn't a technical term.
* Because of your concerns, I wrapped the comment in "The New York Times said..." which is the proper way to do things.
* The statement "some members and bishops" is misleading. The bishops were unanimous. 
* The statement is meant to be a rebuttal to "We had no other choice." I recognize that you want that to be the last word on the matter but that puts things out of balance. The statement "We had no choice" requires balance. And the source (not me) structured it in this manner.
  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right -- I'm kicking myself for not retaining that valid edit.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Judicial Council redux 

message: Would it be appropriate for the primary sources that are no longer being used in the article to be place in the external link section? --Maryrebecca 04:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. Read WP:EL.   ∴ Therefore  talk   20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links