Talk:James W. Holsinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James W. Holsinger article.
Article policies

Talk Archive


Contents

[edit] 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.[1] Thoughts? ∴ 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? ∴ 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. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ∴ 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. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing of Asbury

I have removed the Asbury Heading. First, the sources are no longer relevant and the information is not supportable. Plus, it is editorializing on actual news. I don't believe that it is a practical submission for this page. Livin4dios (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:DEADREF. I quote:

When a link in the References section or Notes section "goes dead" (see link rot), it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but the citation need not be deleted.

This isn't an editorial but a well referenced section. Online references are not required for Wikipedia; you may go to the library and look up all the sources used. Accordingly, I reverted your deletion. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me add: the articles are, in truth, on-line, but as do many newspapers, they charge for archived materials. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
First, I will quote the following from that same article.

If none of those strategies succeed, or the newly found site is considered unreliable, the cited material and citation should be removed if the material is contentious or concerns a living person.

1. This concerns a living person, thus I am treating this as carefully as I can. 2. The original submission was changed on March 21 with the addition: "because he felt like he could not continue to be on a board that required him to be less than truthful with regulatory agencies." Since you can't support that this came from Holsinger, and the sources are dead, and it IS editorializing, I am reverting your save. He did resign from the board, but I do not see any proof that the board to sought to remove him. Also, I do not see how the addition made by someone OTHER then you is helpful or supported. If you fix these two problems, then I might agree about its inclusion into the piece. Your thoughts? Livin4dios (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The strategy from WP:DEADLINK that holds here is as follows:

If the link was merely a "convenience link" to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, remove the link but keep the citation.

I will remove the "convenience link" -- this *is* material that appeared in print and does support the statement that the board attempted to remove Holsinger over claimed COI issues. If you would like to revert the March 21st addition, I would support that. I don't have the reference handy but memory serves that he did respond in that manner. Edit: See below where I found the online article that does support this statment. I rewrote the addition so that it was clear that this was Holsinger's position vs. an editorial comment. The addition provides balance to the section. But, again, revert that portion if you like but the other is assuredly supported by printed sources. Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) demand on-line citations. Thoughts? Let's discuss before you revert again. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to purchase the article, go here: [2] Here is a selected portion from this link:

2. Holsinger quits Asbury board Surgeon General Nominee Faced Removal -- Associated Press -- LOUISVILLE -- A Kentucky doctor nominated by President Bush to be U.S. surgeon general has resigned as a board member of Asbury Theological Seminary. James Holsinger, who still awaits Senate confirmation for the surgeon general post, had been under fire from fellow trustees of the school because of a perceived conflict of interest. He also is a member of the Association of Theological Schools. The board had initiated formal procedures to remove Holsinger, who insists there is no conflict.... Published on 2007-11-16, Page B1, Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)

∴ Therefore | talk 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And here [3] and [4] is a quote from the The Courier-Journal article:

James Holsinger, the nominee for U.S. surgeon general, has resigned from the board of trustees of Asbury Theological Seminary after its board started formal procedures to remove him. Holsinger said he was targeted by fellow board members after he told investigators from a private agency reviewing the seminary's accreditation status that the board hadn't always followed its own policies. "I can no longer serve with integrity on a board which is led by individuals who appear to expect board members to be in any fashion less than fully truthful while providing their opinion to an accreditation visiting team or otherwise," he wrote in his letter of resignation. It is the latest development in more than a year of controversy at the evangelical seminary in Wilmore, Ky., after President Jeff Greenway resigned in October 2006.

The printed sources support the statements in the section. This quote also supports the March 21st addition (as rewritten for a neutral tone). ∴ Therefore | talk 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Here (yay) is the full Courier-Journal article: [5] -- I will be adding it to the Holsinger page as a convenience link. ∴ Therefore | talk 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resign vs. completion

Hi Maryrebecca. I'm happy with your modification because it isn't central to the article. Just wanted to point out that the source (and there was a subsequent one) that used the term "resigned" and made no mention of the completion of his term. It would be perfect (but no biggie) if you could find a source that make that distinction. Again, nbd. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The UMNS article currently sourced says: "Dr. James Holsinger, a physician from Kentucky who has served as Judicial Council president for 2004-2008, and Rudolfo Beltran, an attorney from the Philippines, are retiring." That is why I changed it to completion of term and added the president bit. If you would rather use the word retired, that is fine with me. The United Methodist Church's wiki page states that each term is 8 years. If he started in 2000, doesn't that mean that he completed his term?
I have some more information for his religion section that I found on a newly posted 2008 CV at the University. I am really busy with school right now but I will try to get it posted on the discussion page sometime this week. --Maryrebecca (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Maryrebecca, I have no problem with your edits. I was just being a stickler on the use of "retired". I really shouldn't have made an issue out of it -- sorry! Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)