Talk:James W. Holsinger/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Non-biographical Information

The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and other LGBT Health organizations have expressed public concern[1] [2][3]regarding Dr. Holsinger’s association with a church which supports efforts to change sexual orientation, the Hope Springs Community Church in Lexington, Kentucky, which “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian,” according to its pastor, Rev. David Calhoun. [4]

Attempts to cure homosexuality have been denounced as unproven and potentially dangerous by a large number of established medical and mental health organizations, including the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association. For a discussion see sexual orientation and medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryrebecca (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 June 2007

Maryrebecca, welcome to Wikipedia, but you must understand that this is not a forum for regurgitating press releases and suppressing controversial information. Your edits have inserted in the article Bush's praise of Holsinger, in generic terms typical of press releases that tell the reader almost nothing, but deleted specific criticism of Holsinger (the first paragraph above, which you removed from the article). Prominent groups have opposed or expressed concern about Holsinger's appointment. That is indeed a biographical fact about him, which we should include (being careful to report the opinions without adopting them).
I think the first paragraph above is proper for the article. The second is borderline. I'm inclined to think that the information would be better covered with a mere wikilink here, unless one of Holsinger's critics has drawn a specific link between him and the "curing gays" idea. The quotation from Bush is also borderline just because it's such generic blather. One of the more specific supportive quotations from Kentuckians would probably be a better substitute.
We will also need to do some work on the article to meet Wikipedia's normal stylistic rules. Whether or not the quotation from Bush is to stay, it certainly shouldn't be the third sentence. The introductory section is supposed to be a summary of the key points of the article.
You are obviously a supporter of Holsinger's. Please bear in mind our policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which you'll often see referred to by the shortcut "WP:NPOV" or just "NPOV". For example, you boldfaced "1991", suggesting to me that you wanted to emphasize your view that this paper was written some years ago. We don't boldface particular facts to beat the reader over the head with them, just to make the article subject look better or worse. We simply present the facts. JamesMLane t c 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Although I am a new editor of Wikipedia, I am not new to the website. As an educator, I understand the pros and cons of using it as a source for information. If I were to suppress controversial information, I would have deleted the entire section entitled: Views on Homosexuality; instead I only added information that I thought was relevant to the discussion. I have replaced the first paragraph as you suggested, but deleted the other mention of David Calhoun earlier in the article.
I spoke with my school librarian who stated that Press Releases are an authoritative source and completely relevant on this page. Dr. Holsinger has a Wikipedia entry because he has been nominated to be surgeon general, and she thinks that we should add an entire section about obesity and the surgeon general job. During this discussion, my librarian also mentioned that we need to work on the balance of this biography. Although Dr. Holsinger has controversial opinions about homosexuality, this is only a small portion of his belief system and there is other information that is as important (or more so) when discussing his ability to be surgeon general.
In the world of science, any article that is older than 10 years has reduced relevance. At my school, we remove all books from the science reference section after 10 years and replace them with more current editions. I only bolded 1991 to point out that of course it no longer "represents current medical science." On this same point, do you think the quote at the bottom of the page should be in a box, drawing attention to it as if it is the most important quote on the page?
I believe in the institution of Wikipedia, and think through discussions like these we can come to the truth about a topic. Each of us has a bias, and even if one is only reporting facts, one's bias comes through by the facts that one choses to report. This article needs balance, and I hope that you will help me to improve that balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryrebecca (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 June 2007
  • Maryrebecca - you make some very valid points. However, I'd like to respond to one point you made "Although Dr. Holsinger has controversial opinions about homosexuality, this is only a small portion of his belief system and there is other information that is as important (or more so) when discussing his ability to be surgeon general." I imagine that you are right, and that his views about homosexuality are a small portion of his belief system. However, all of the controversy and current discussion about his nomination centers around his views on homosexuality. This article is not engaging in the discussion, or making a comment on his views, it is only stating that a discussion is taking place, and that the discussion centers around a paper that he wrote.
  • Whether or not the paper is valid or important to you, me or Dr. Holsinger is irrelevant. The point is that his nomination is a major event in his biography, and his nomination has immediately become controversial, solely because of the paper he wrote. This paper has become a major event in his life, even if it has no scientific value whatsoever. This article is presenting the fact his paper became the leading point of contention in his nomination to be surgeon general, one of the most important events in his biography.
  • You or I may find his views on obesity or smoking to be relevant, but that doesn't really matter, because according to sources that one can reference, the only views that are part of his nomination discussion are his views on homosexuality. There are dozen and dozens or references one can reference regarding his views on homosexuality, and very few regarding any other topic. OsteopathicFreak 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course a press release can be cited. I never said otherwise. I meant only that we don't accept press releases as being necessarily true. The WP:NPOV policy means that, on controversial matters, we report significant opinions without adopting them. We also don't censor significant opinions that challenge the official view.
As to specifics -- I think most of the Bush quotation doesn't have much solid information. Our readers would be better served if we substituted a paraphrase along the lines of: "In announcing the nomination, Bush said that Holsinger would 'particularly focus his efforts on educating parents and children about childhood obesity....'" As for the other quotation, I'm generally not in favor of highlighting a quotation in a box.
The article had more significant problems, though. I've tried to re-organize it in accordance with normal Wikipedia style. At this point I don't have time to do more.
I lean toward saying that there should be one section recounting his volunteer work with the United Methodist Church, and then a separate section noting that opposition to his nomination is developing from gay-rights groups, which are basing their opposition on, inter alia, actions he took in his UMC roles. JamesMLane t c 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because it is easy to find information about a certain topic does not mean that we are not responsible for digging deeper into the life of Dr. Holsinger. Of course the easiest information to find is the information that is the most controversial, but if we are only going to report that information on this page, it should not be a biography. I think that at biography should give the reader enough information to make it clear why he is a candidate for surgeon general.
  • I have replace the information that you, OsteopathicFreak, have removed 'views on obesity'. I would like to know why you think that Dr. Holsinger's views on homosexuality are more important than his views on obesity (which are more recent). If confirmed, he will be focusing on this issue, not homosexuality. Doesn't that make it more relevant, even if it is not as controversial?
  • I have used other engines than Google to find information. If you are interested, try your local library and search on NewsBank. You can find lots of other articles dating back to 1980s about Dr. Holsinger's career. The article in the Lexington Herald Leader from June 6th has other quotes that I think should be added about his views on homosexuality.
  • I also worked on the organization of the page, especially under views on homosexuality. I have noticed that he is referred to as Holsinger and Dr. Holsinger. I assume they should all be changed to one or the other, but I was not sure which was appropriate.--Maryrebecca 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
We have some articles that are about particular controversies. If the article were "James Holsinger nomination controversy" or the like, then it would focus on the pro and con arguments. This article, however, is a general biography. We should neither emphasize nor de-emphasize "information to make it clear why he is a candidate for surgeon general". All significant aspects of his life, including but not limited to the current controversy, should be included.
Of course, the controversy has a bearing on what's significant and how it's reported. For example, I doubt that his bio would mention the 2002 conference at all, let alone a single session at that conference, if it weren't being brought up by his supporters to counter the criticism of him. On that basis, we can include it but in the appropriate context.
My ES (which means "edit summary") included the phrase "rm [for 'remove'] superfluous honorifics", meaning that we don't refer to him as "Dr." Holsinger. I missed a couple in the section about homosexuality because I wasn't otherwise editing that section. In general, however, this is an "MoS" fix because it's pursuant to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them. For example, use Asimov, Hawking, and Pinsky; not Dr. Asimov, Professor Hawking (or Prof Hawking or Dr Hawking), or Dr. Pinsky (or Dr. Drew). (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names)

Of course, we don't alter verbatim quotations, so Bush's references to him should not be changed from "Dr. Holsinger" to "Holsinger". Article titles should also be quoted exactly.
By the way, another MoS fix that I mentioned in my ES was to use sentence case in section headings. JamesMLane t c 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

UK

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)

Hope Springs Church press release

"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." [1]--Maryrebecca 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriateness of new information

I have discovered a list of memberships in societies and was wondering if you thought that information was appropriate for this page. Examples include Board of Directors of the American Red Cross, Member of American Association of Anatomists since 1969, Fellow of American Heart Association 1978-2004, House of Delegates Member of American Medical Association from 1990-1993, Association of Military Surgeons of the United States since 1976. The list is about 2 pages, and these are the national level ones. --Maryrebecca 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Decisions like that are on a case-by-case basis. The AMA House of Delegates is a fairly large body (I think it's in the hundreds), so I'd be inclined not to bother listing it unless there's a context of his playing a significant role in the organization. The American Red Cross currently has a Board of Governance (not Board of Directors), which is comparatively small (size 12 to 25 beginning in 2009, according to the Bylaws; I don't know what it is now but probably similar), so if that's the body he was on it's probably worth including.
The other memberships you list seem to be just professional organizations of the type that most physicians belong to in their specialties. We should say somewhere that he's a cardiologist, at least according to news reports, but I don't see a reason to include things like the American Heart Association.
One of the best reasons to include an external link is where another website gives relevant information that's more detailed than we want in an encyclopedia article. If the list you have is available online, we should certainly link to it. JamesMLane t c 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is to be a straightforward accounting of the facts of the subject's life, not an attempt to bolster his candidacy to be Surgeon General. I'm correcting some violations of proper encyclopedic style:

  • "During his distinguished career...." -- "distinguished" is just puffery.
  • "following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq the week before" -- wow, how dramatic, but unless there's some direct connection with his work, it doesn't belong in the article.
  • "His efforts were materially enhanced by his serving simultaneously...." No, he served simultaneously as etc., which is the objective fact.
  • Novello was the "first Hispanic woman to serve as Surgeon General of the United States". He got an award from Novello, fine. There's no reason in this article to identify her as the first Hispanic woman except to try to counter the charges of bigotry against Holsinger by associating him indirectly with diversity. Anyone who wants to know more about Novello can follow the wikilink.
  • The numerous awards mentioned all need citations, if they're to stay at all. Many such awards are handed out like candy and don't mean anything. For an encyclopedia article, we don't need to list every award the subject ever received. JamesMLane t c 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:BITE--Maryrebecca 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's why I didn't slap a "citation needed" tag at every place in your edits that deserved it. You do need to provide sources, though. WP:BITE doesn't override WP:CITE. JamesMLane t c 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to help me learn about NPOV. I returned the information about the Iraq war in a different way. Do you want to call the the Iraq Conflict?
Before I began this set of edits, I looked at Wesley Clark's (a retired general in politics) biography to determine what was appropriate. He has won similar army awards to Holsinger and they are listed on his page in the same manner that I listed them. His only citation was a resume. I learned of my information about Holsinger from his Dec 2006 CV (the same one the newspapers are using). When I looked on the wikipedia pages about these awards, it is a federal offense to claim you have one and don't. I don't know how to use the same source more than once without duplicating it in the reference section. I looked on the citing sources page and did not see how to make the a,b,c.
As for the VA awards, I found a document that explains they are the highest awards given in the VA by the Secretary and I don't think that makes them "candy". [2]
I asked the question about memberships because I did not see anything similar on Clark's page so I was not sure. Thank you for your response.
I would appreciate a WP:CITE for the areas that you think need citations, and I will work to find others than his CV. I explain to my students that they cannot use Wikipedia as a source because it is not well cited. I want to make sure that the page I am working on does not fall into that category.
I am still learning.--Maryrebecca 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a substantive difference between the Defense Distinguished Service Medal and "employee recognition rewards" as is the VA's. The latter would typically not be included in an encyclopedic entry, the former would most definitely.
The source's for Clark's rewards went way beyond just a resume.
I think you are doing a great job, Maryrebecca, slogging through the ofttimes difficult task of learning the policies of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. It's can be a challenging learning curve, but well worth it. SmallRepair 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Resume

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)

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)

Moving Page

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)

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)

This is help on how to technically move pages: Help:Moving_a_page and Wikipedia:Requested moves. However we need to discuss whether to move the page rather than just do it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) will give us some ideas on how to proceed.

I think we shouldn't move the page as the son is *much* more notable than the father and most if not all links will be for the son. If the father is notable enough to get a biography we can link to it at the top of the son's page with a little tag called a hatnote. Wikipedia:Disambiguation gives more details. Secretlondon 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies about the move. My mistake. OsteopathicFreak 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

VA information

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)

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)
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)

Ruling of Judicial Council

As you know I have been conducting research for the page. The United Methodist Church has archives of all rulings of the Judicial Council, and I found the ruling that is quoted in this section. Although it has a source for the information, I think the information is incorrect. I cannot find in Decision 985, "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church." I was not sure how to proceed to correct the misinformation. [3] --Maryrebecca 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

After more research in the archives of the UMC (they are better than the VA!) I found that this quote is a part of the Book of Discipline. I added that information to the page.--Maryrebecca 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work digging this information up. It is interesting. However, is it relevant to the discussion of Holsinger? I think it might belong in a more in depth discussion of the Methodist's church struggle with homosexuality, a worthy topic no doubt. That's why I added a link to that article. We need to know that a decision was made, and what the decision was and which side Holsinger came down on. But this level of detail, e.g. extended quotes from the "book of disciple," seems to really be distracting from the thrust of this section. Again, I'm all for having this information out there, I just don't know if it belongs in an article about Holsinger. Likewise, I don't think we need an extended conversation about reparative therapy in this article. We just need to know briefly, where Holsinger stands, providing only enough information for context and clarity, and referring readers elsewhere if they want to know more.
As a general rule, I think the litmus test for extended quotes in this article might be "Is this quote directly describing Holsinger, the man, his work, his writings, or his beliefs?" Your thoughts? OsteopathicFreak 18:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Holsinger appears to be in charge of ruling on issues using the Church's rules book, and the LGBT groups do not like the rules book or his rulings on it. A few questions to ponder: How many Methodist's are there in America, living under this rules book? Who is in charge of changing the rules book? How far can the Judicial Committee go in its interpretation without the book needing to be rewritten? I think that if we only use sound bites, we will distort the complexity of the issue at stake. I like what Maryrebecca has written, but I would like to see it shortened somewhat. --Aeschyla 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I hear you, but I still think getting into all this is really tangential. For example, if you're going to start getting into exactly what the book says about LGBT people, then you're going have to present all sides. The books also clearly states (Judicial Ruling 702) that "Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth." This is a very, very big discussion, that deserve attention. All I'm saying is that I should be discussed, at length, but elsewhere.
To give us all some idea about how complex the internal UMC discussion of the Beth Stroud case and its relationship to UMC & homosexuality, take a look at the following UMC sites:
Just a reminder that the article is about Holsinger. Not the UMC Judical Committee.OsteopathicFreak 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can add this info to the Elizabeth Stroud article, its a bit weak right now.OsteopathicFreak 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Methodist bishops

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)

There are definitely Bishops in the United Methodist Church. See List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church --Aeschyla 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your link to the diversity within Methodist beliefs. I find that information very helpful. --Aeschyla 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information

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)

We are editing at the same time, and my comments in the discussion page appear to have been deleted. --Aeschyla 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I had stated that: I believe that the white paper is the crux of the controversy given that it is written directly by Holsinger rather than a he says/she says discussion. I believe that having a better summary of Holsinger's argument in the white paper is very important, given that few people will read the white paper (but I do like the image box!). I also thought that the section is now long enough to subdivide. I do like your new organization, however, which you were doing as I was writing.--Aeschyla 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki can handle the editing at the same time. Just watch out when it says "edit conflict" and then go back and merge your changes with the saved document. Good way to avoid this is to use the sandbox. Also, comments like "in contrast to the press" are a no go. This is an original research issue WP:NOR and a WP:NPOV issue. Lastly, everything has to have references, especially if its the least bit controversial. I would suggest editing using the sandbox. Put in your references. Then post it. I will revert the White paper section to the sourced version, until you can put up the sources for your edits. OsteopathicFreak 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the unsourced information, I was adding the references to the quotes when you wrote you comments. I appreciate your comments on a NPOV on "in contrast to the press", I can see your point. I went searching in the white paper for the "homosexual lifestyle" and it is not in the white paper. So I have removed the reference to "homosexual lifestyle" from the white paper section. --Aeschyla 05:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! :) OsteopathicFreak 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Exodus

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)

  • ON EXODUS - OK, we disagree. Here's my point: Exodus defense of Holsinger is a fact. Your assumptions about their agenda are not. I may think Pres Bush has an agenda in nominating Holsinger, but I don't get to say that, because its just my opinion and it doesn't belong in this article. I don't see them putting any words in his mouth, they are coming to his defense. BUT - perhaps the quote should be truncated. OsteopathicFreak 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked at the Exodus quote. You are right. There was a very leading statement with a heavy speculation about Holsinger's beliefs. I removed that part. OsteopathicFreak 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also looked at the White paper again. It would seem that the paper with the most quotes is "Agnew, Jeremy, Hazards Associated with Anal Erotic Activity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15:307-314, 1986." Not exactly New England Journal of Medicine. The NEJM article is only referenced once in Holsinger's paper, in reference to HPV as the cause of anal cancer. He doesn't mention this, but HPV also causes cervical cancer in women. OsteopathicFreak 05:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1991 I do not believe that we knew that HPV causes cervical cancer in women. I am happy to change the references to Archives of Sexual Behavior and any other one you want to add. I think it is important for people to know where he got his medical information for the white paper. His opinions at the end of the white paper are his own. --Aeschyla 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Election Contributions

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) There's two pages of records. You have to view the second page.OsteopathicFreak 07:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks. Aren't there more than $16,000? --Aeschyla 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Holsinger's contributions to McConnell are repeated twice. I believe that the contributions should stay in Political Affiliation, but be removed from the Nomination section, as the contributions reflect that Holsinger supports Republicans. However, it would be easier for the reader to make the connection themselves if the Political Affiliation section was moved above the Religious Affiliation section. And the McConnell quote moved to the end of the Nomination section. --Aeschyla 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope Springs Church related to Views on homosexuality

If we have the subsection Hope Springs Church under Views on homosexuality, shouldn't we have something that Holsinger said to show that he agrees with his minister? I have not been able to find any information that expresses Holsinger's views on homosexuality related to this church. Should the sentences be moved to a new section, since they are no longer related to Holsinger's views or deleted?--Maryrebecca 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Maryrebecca that there nothing out there from Holsinger about whether or not he agrees with the practices of this church. Though I disagree about what this means. He's a founding member, and continued his membership for this long, is somewhat of a de facto show of support. And I don't think that's Original Research, its just obvious. All we need to convey are the facts. - Holsinger was a founding member of a church that has a "recovery" ministry which includes people "who don't not wish to be gay." The minister of the church has verified this is numerous quotes. --OsteopathicFreak 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Another point that is a bit confusing, the timeline of events. Perhaps the events in this section should be in chronological order.
  • 1990?? Holsinger is a founding member of Hope Springs. Anyone know the date on this?
  • 1991 - Holsinger sits on the UMC committee to investigate homosexuality, a four year process. He publishes 1991 paper. He drops out just before they release their findings.
  • 2002 - The Women's Health is not related to the UMC, more related to his role as a physician. should it be seperate?
  • 2004, he's sitting on a different committee in the UMC - the Judicial council. They rule to give the boot to the lesbian minister, as well agree with a pastor who denies a gay man access to a church.OsteopathicFreak 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep Hope Springs in the religious affiliation area. Obviously his religion and views on homosexuality are linked, but he has done other stuff linked with his religion than just this issue of homosexuality. And I would put all the other religious dealings in the section on religious affiliation. I personally would like to know what else this church does and what other types of things the Judicial Council rules on.
I don't care about the date order. But do be aware that this white paper was not published. --Aeschyla 19:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question about the paper not being published. He did write it. He is the sole author. And it has now "been released" to the public. Does that make it published? The White house and numerous others have referred to the paper as a scientific medical document. Does that mean its as good as published? Just wondered how to handle that question.OsteopathicFreak 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of publishing a scientific paper is that is goes through peer review (which this did not), and in 1991 it would have had a mass printing in a bound journal (which it did not). This white paper was only handed out to the individuals on the judicial committee dealing with the issue (how many people are on the committee 10-20?). What is on the web is a photocopy of a paper written on a typewriter. It was not released by Holsinger, and I wonder if there are copyright issues associated with releasing it without permission (I am no expert in copyright law). I say we continue to call it a white paper and not worry too much about any legal definitions of "published." --Aeschyla 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. "White paper" it is. OsteopathicFreak 00:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ex-gay groups, including Exodus International, defended Holsinger's affiliation with the controversial therapy. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus said "As former homosexuals, we cannot ignore this hypocritical attack upon Dr. Holsinger. As a society, we should not disqualify an individual simply because of his belief that those conflicted by their same-sex attraction can and should be helped."[26]

I am a bit concerned about this quote since Holsinger and his church (see Hope Springs Press Release above) have never claimed to participate in any therapy to "cure" gays. Do we think it is ok to include information on this page that allude to views that might not be Holsinger's?--Maryrebecca 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very hesitant to include more information under the Hope Springs Church and would delete the reparative therapy comments. It is clear that we can learn a lot about Holsinger's opinions from the Rulings of the Judicial Council and his white paper, but his connection to reparative therapy is very weak. The minister denies that they "cure" gays, and Holsinger being a founding member of a Methodist Church does not make him responsible for all the opinions of a minister that the Methodist church appointed to that post. --Aeschyla 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak, where do we have a reference that states that Holsinger is "an individual [that believes] that those conflicted by their same-sex attraction can and should be helped"? Perhaps we should state their support without the quote that implies that Holsinger believes in reparative therapy. The quote gives readers the impression that we (the public) know more about Holsinger's beliefs than we do. --Aeschyla 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Holsinger helped found the church. The church has admitted it ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay, or are trying to get out of that lifestyle. Calhoun says they don't "cure" gays, but they do minister to people who don't want to be gay.
Some groups have made the allegation that this is a form of reparative therapy. Other groups (like Exodus) have made the defense that there's nothing wrong with this. We have to present both sides of the controversy over his affiliation with this church and its practices, and leave it at that.
What needs to be said is that this is an issue that came up in the process of his nomination. Some groups made allegations of reparative therapy, and others defended it. In a similar fashion to presenting the criticisms and defenses of his 1991 paper, we have to present the criticisms and defenses of his affiliation with this Church's practices.
Holsinger's attitudes about homosexuality are the #1 issue that has been raised in his nomination process. All the comments (pro & con) that have been made regarding Holsinger directly, are very relevant.
The fact that Exodus international is coming to Holsinger's defense, is in itself significant. They are the largest group Christian's supporting practices like "ministering to people who no longer wish to be gay."
However, I think it is important to note that we don't exactly know what Holsinger's views on this issue are. So maybe the section title needs to be changed from "Views of homosexuality" to "Nomination controversy and homosexuality" or some such. Suggestions?? OsteopathicFreak 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Holsinger is not a minister -- he has been an administrator at this church. If his church ministers to gays who want to talk, Holsinger would not be doing it, the minister would. I suppose the most important question is: what does it mean to be a starter member of a new church? --Aeschyla 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should put pro and con comments in, but I do not think we should put in any quotes that either mis-quote or mis-state an issue for the commenters own uses.--Aeschyla 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I hear your reservation. At this point, reparative therapy and whether or not Holsinger is for or against it is part of his nomination discussion. This is from today's Chicago Tribune.OsteopathicFreak 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All the major medical and mental health organizations see such therapy as potentially harmful and recommend against it. The gay and lesbian community denounces it as self-hatred. And even the most thorough studies say just a fraction of the people who enter such treatment truly change their orientation. The subject has even become a part of the dispute over President Bush's nominee for surgeon general. Dr. James Holsinger, a Kentucky cardiologist who helped establish a church that reportedly helps gays "walk out of that lifestyle," is opposed by gay activists. Despite the criticism, groups that support such counseling say they have seen a surge in interest. [emphasis added][5]

Back to the discussion of the date of Hope Springs beginning: I have found a date on the webpage under Staff and David Calhoun. He came to Lexington in 2000 to start the church. I found a newspaper ad in 2003 advertising the church's service, but it did not say it was the first (although I think it was). I have looked for the sale of the building in the Lexington paper, but cannot find it, which leads me to believe they must rent. I have emailed the secretary asking her to place the date on the webpage, and hopefully I will hear back. Until then, I placed 2000 as an approximate date to give the 4 entries parallel structure. --Maryrebecca 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of family information

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)

Doing references correctly the first time

Shortcut:
WP:CITE#HOW

Hey, can we all make a point of fixing up the citations. If its done right the first time, it saves work later. Please, don't just put a hyperlink. You should first give the article: author, title, publisher, date. Then the hyperlink. Be sure to put the hyperlink in brackets. Example:

<ref>Vos, Sarah. "Criticism surprises Holsinger colleagues Surgeon General Pick's Views On Gays at Issue" Lexington Herald-Leader. 10 June 2007. A1. [http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/93637.html]</ref>

If I am at all incorrect on this, please correct me. Thanks. OsteopathicFreak 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been trying to add as much information as I could for the sources, but I will be honest that I did not look for the correct way. I tell my students the same: not just a URL. I asked earlier about page numbers for the CV but did not get a response. Do you want to include page numbers? If so, that will add many duplicate references, but would make it easier for others to find the information in the 32 page document.
No worries, I didn't do it correct either. I'm sure Wiki has worked out the best way to deal with the page number issue. Certainly having them is very useful. There's got to be a way without duplicated every reference. I'll check on WP:CITE to see what I can find. OsteopathicFreak 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a single "correct" format. Maryrebecca referred above to MLA style, but Wikipedia doesn't enforce the same kind of uniformity that prevails in academia. For better or worse, different editors have different preferences. It's not uncommon to find an article with two parallel streams of numbered references. (For example, see this old version of the Rudy Giuliani article. That one's now been largely cleaned up.) Even if all the references are as superscripted footnotes, format within them varies. It's irritating, but there's no immediate prospect for the imposition of a single mandated style. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the difference between references and external links. I've noticed that many of the May articles from the Lexington Herald are in the external links section, and the older articles still in the references section do not go anywhere. How does this work? --Aeschyla 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Holsinger and homosexuality section

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)

Perhaps we should reverse the order, and put the most recent information first, starting with Judicial council and ending with white paper. I am sure that we will get more information of his current beliefs when/if the senate has a confirmation hearing. --Aeschyla 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "current views" section, and I assume as Holsinger begins to talk to the Senate that it will grow. I went looking for the Lesbian woman's comments on how Holsinger helped her with a medical situation last year, and it appears that the Lexington Herald paper's archives are not available to the public after about a week. We need to check all reference's links, and remove the ones that don't work. I will add the above mentioned quote when I can get it. --Aeschyla 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New Photographs

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)

Vandalism?

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)

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)
Gracias. Glad we could sort it out.  :) OsteopathicFreak 23:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New content and reorganization

I have been reading about how to make Holsinger's page a GA Class or A Class article; therefore, I have worked on the introduction, added a current event topic box, and have added more references. I used Wesley Clark's page as a guide, since he is an Army General in the public eye and his article is in the feature article class. I plan to fix the external links and more of the references. The article is currently 47 KB in length, and I would like to shorten it to be closer to the suggested 32 KB. I will ask for peer review when I finish working. I would appreciate any help or suggestions. --Maryrebecca 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Less dependence on his personal resume. Shortening is required. The Career section is difficult to get through as there is too much fluff and uninteresting details. An example of fluff:

Holsinger oversaw the modernization of the $5 billion Medicaid program on which 700,000 poor, elderly and disabled Kentuckians depend.

This sounds straight out of a PR piece. Example of uninteresting detail:

During the two years that Holsinger was Secretary, he was a member of a multitude of boards.[5] He chaired the board of Get Healthy Kentucky, an initiative to address obesity, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle, attempting to create a healthier population in Kentucky. [8]In 2005 he was awarded the Superior Service Award from the cabinet.[5]

These are details of a bureaucrat and not truly noteworthy, distinguishing facts. I would be hesitant to model after Wesley Clark as they are not historically comparable with his weighty bio. The Career section could easily be whittled down to a couple of relevant paragraphs. For instance, I would rewrite the U of K section (sans footnotes) as such:

From 1994 to 2003, Holsinger served as Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center. Highlights of his tenure included the establishment of the College of Public Health and the Women's Health Center. He returned to the faculty in 2005.

The rest, frankly, is tedious details. All Women's Health Centers address women's needs. And all would address preventative medicine. It is difficult to read:

His faculty appointments include Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health and Health Services Management in the College of Public Health; and Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anatomy in the College of Medicine.

I would rewrite the Kentucky state government to read:

From 2003 through 2005, Holsinger was the Kentucky Secretary of Health and Family Services. He modernized the state Medicaid program and focused on issues of obesity, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle.

The page shouldn't read as a resume but more as an encyclopedia where details should raise to a level of noteworthiness befitting the subject.
That all aside, your diligent work on this page has been excellent.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would include the Katrina mention, though.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that shortening the article slightly would be a good idea. But I would cut all sections in the article by a third, rather than shortening the bio so dramatically. I think that it is very important for readers to know why this man was chosen over so many others for a high level position in the public eye. -- Aeschyla 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that only the Career portion should be shortened -- certainly the balance of the article deserves the edge of Occam's razor. The art of paraphrasing is lacking. That said, the fact that Holsinger served on several boards diminishes his bio by highlighting the minutia. Please suggest an alternative rewrite of, say, his Chancellorship at UK that adds substanatively to what I have written. He was Chancelor of the UK Medical Center. Does it really add to his gloss that this includes the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Health Sciences, and Dentistry? Couldn't the reader click to the Center if they were really interested? Do you feel that it significantly raises his public persona that he added a doctorate in nursing? I'm not belittling these activities but they do not add value to the article.  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Therefore, for the new views about the content of the page; I think working on it for as long as I have makes it difficult to see areas for improvement. I have removed some of the content as you suggested and also removed the OR about his anti-gay bias. It was not my intent to show my opinion, only to summarize the controversy. I agree that the art of paraphrasing is missing, but we have been having difficulty coming to a NPOV when the quotes are removed. I think we would all appreciate your looking through the controversy section and making similar suggestions as you did for his career section. --Maryrebecca 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statemetents?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Article shortening

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)

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)

Thanks for the positive comments. I agree with Maryrebecca that this group of editors has had trouble paraphrasing with NPOV. I believe there is plenty more to shorten; however, I am not convinced we can shorten the Judicial Council section without misrepresenting a complex issue. I will continue to focus on the other sections first. -- Aeschyla 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Women's Health Center 2002

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)

Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church rewrite

There are several problems with this paragraph, besides length:

  • The date is wrong -- it should be October.
  • There were only two dissenters.
  • It depends on the decision itself, a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources that are the interpreters of primary sources.

Here is my suggested rewrite (inline references would be properly cited with <ref> tags:

Holsinger is president of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the supreme court of the Church, which interprets church law created by the General Conference. In October 2005, the council defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister and reinstated a pastor who had been suspended for refusing to allow a gay man to join his congregation. Additionally, the court ruled that local resolutions supporting gay inclusiveness were superceded by church law. As Neela Banerjee of the New York Times described it, "The rulings served to reaffirm the Methodists' traditional stance against the ordination of 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.'" According to the Times, church experts felt that the more far reaching decision involved the reinstatement of the pastor and that the rulings provided support to the conservatives of the church.[7] One Judicial Council member said that the decisions shouldn't be read as Holsinger's personal views because they were applying church doctrine and lacked the discretion to rule otherwise.<ref name="criticism surprises" /> However, two other members disented, in part, to the Stroud decision.[8]

Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   05:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at the rewrite. I have checked on a couple of things, you are right that it was in October and there were only two dissenters. The decision was unanimous on the Stroud case (not 6 to 3 that was a different case). There are two different decisions separated by a year that you have discussed here that are not related (stroud vs reinstating a pastor). I am currently trying to get the references to clarify this. We returned to the primary source because of the misinterpretation and simplification of the issues that the secondary sources had. For example, the Judicial council did not reinstate the pastor but ruled that the bishop removed him without due process. Also, the Judicial council did not defrock Stroud, she was already defrocked. They just did not overturn the case. It is also important to note that the dissenters of the stroud case did not disagree on the ruling only on the implications of the ruling. That is a huge difference. I like how you phrased it: the council lacked the discretion to rule otherwise. LGBT members have been trying unsuccessfully to change the church's laws for years. We should not hang this failure around the neck of Holsinger as he was not in the legislative body who could change the law. I will get back to you. --Aeschyla 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


As a science teacher, I was horrified to read that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones, until I read about it in the Biography portal. I now understand the rationale. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I am still learning. While I was reading, I noticed that the portal also has a section on guilt by association.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

I think that the entire section about the church should be removed since Holsinger has said nothing about his church, only the minister has, and therefore we are assuming that Holsinger agrees with his minister. Thoughts.--Maryrebecca 14:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the most challenging thing we have to remember about Wikipedia -- it is the most important -- the first line of the primary pillar, Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

The talk page shouldn't be a place to argue the "truth" of a position but instead to support inclusion of statements with verified, reliable sources. If editors use primary sources to support their statements, then they are potentially guilty of "original research." Instead, our responsibility is to provide third party interpreters of fact. If you disagree with a verified, reliable source then your job is to find alternative, reliable sources that disagree.
I'll discuss your comments:
  • The Reuters source states that their were 2 dissenters in the Stroud case. I found another source: [9] which states,

    However, some council members opposed his views, and the bishops later rejected one decision.

    This decision wasn't unanimous without dissent regardless of your interpretation of the primary source.
  • The New York Times says the two decisions were contemporaneous. Therefore, that statement stands as verified (vs. true). And, lucky for us, in fact, they were contemporaneous, see [10] which is from the horse's mouth (decision No. 1032).
  • I understand your interpretation of the legalese used, "not defrocked," "not reinstate." Interpreters of fact tend to look at the effects of a ruling and not just at the plain text. These verified statements should stand unless you find alternative, reliable sources (I emphasize reliable as you need to be selective). The editors of WP should not be the interpreters of the interpreters. Verification, not truth (i.e., not truth as you personally see it, as that is POV). It is the bedrock of WP.
As for the association with his church, I will look into that later. If there is verified, reliably sourced criticism of his association with the church, then it is a candidate for inclusion. It really shouldn't be difficult to find balanced counter-arguments, I would suspect.
The issue here isn't to "protect" or "condemn" Holsinger. Our responsibility is to protect Wikipedia's standards. If you have a POV that a particular criticism is unfair, then you need to keep your POV in check and instead find verifiable, reliable sources to back up the substance of the article.
If there are no objections, I would like to include my rewrite of this section into the article as it corrects several factual mistakes and is sourced. Then we can work on it from there. Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
To emphasize the problems with editors interpreting primary sources, the church press itself describes the reinstatement as "Church court reinstates pastor who denied membership to gay man" [11]  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


As promised, I have separate out the two cases that you merged into one. The original text in this section only contained the Stroud case. --Aeschyla 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope Springs Community Church 2000

I think this section is well written. It is properly sourced, includes the fact that he has been questioned about his role in the church and properly includes the pastor's statements and denials. This meshes well with this from the New York Times,

Gay rights advocates had been alarmed by reports that his congregation, Hope Springs Community United Methodist Church, had a ministry to change the sexual orientation of gay men and lesbians. However, the congregation’s pastor, the Rev. David Calhoun, denied that it did.[12]

 ∴ Therefore  talk   22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I was not clearer with my first post, as I do not think we are discussing the same thing. When I said we should remove the entire section on the church I only meant the Hope Springs section. After reading your post, I still feel the same way. Holsinger has said nothing about his church ministering to gays, only his pastor. I am not sure how this is not guilt by association.
I do not think we should remove the Judicial Council information, as that is a part of Holsinger's life which others think is relevant to his position as Surgeon General. However, I think you are conflating two judicial council decisions, and if we want to include both of them I am happy to. I have never looked at the primary source about the judicial council's decision to uphold a minister's ability to remove someone from the church's membership. So I think it is unfair to say that I have not read the primary source correctly.
My understanding about biographies for not well known people is to do no harm. So telling me that I cannot discuss the relevance of material on this talk page does not seem to follow Jimmy Wales discussion of biographies of living people. None of us are attacking Holsinger, only trying to make his article well balanced and better. If you recall, this discussion came about, because I am trying to improve the article for a peer review.
Again, I ask you to understand that I am new to Wikipedia, and I now understand why I cannot use primary sources, but that does not mean that I can change all the information on the page today. All of the primary source information also has been published by secondary sources, and I will work to add the secondary sources where relevant. Please be kind. --Maryrebecca 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To Maryrebecca -- To start, I apologize for making you feel these comments were directed at you. I have always admired your interest in learning the Wikipedia methodology.
I think I understood your concerns with the Hope Springs section -- the comments in this talk section were only applicable to that section of the article. I understand your argument for removal but I, respectively, disagree. I believe that you are correct that the critics are using guilt by association but the editors, strictly speaking, are not. They are not associating Holsinger with the church as much as quoting (appropriately) critics who are.
The comments under the section "Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church rewrite" were not directed at you and were not meant to castigate but to remind. I was responding to Aeschyla's statement, "We returned to the primary source because of the misinterpretation and simplification of the issues that the secondary sources had. For example, the Judicial council did not reinstate the pastor but ruled that the bishop removed him without due process." I felt a responsibility to remind Aeschyla of the primary tenets of Wikipedia involving "truth" and the use of primary sources, and, frankly, I feel her original research was faulty in relationship to the reinstated pastor. She read only one of the two decisions involving the pastor -- the one involving due process. That is why we rely on secondary sources for evaluation. Editors are not original researchers -- we are precluded by Wikipedia:No Original Research. There were ample number of secondary sources.
I would appreciate if you could be specific on how the Judicial Council section is conflating the two decisions. I attempted to make each sentence's referent clear.
Sentence Referent resolution
Holsinger is president of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the supreme court of the Church, which interprets church law created by the General Conference. None
In October 2005, the council defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister and reinstated a pastor who had been suspended for refusing to allow a gay man to join his congregation. Defrocking and reinstatement
Additionally, the court ruled that local resolutions supporting gay inclusiveness were superseded by church law. Other resolutions
As Neela Banerjee of the New York Times described it, "The rulings served to reaffirm the Methodists' traditional stance against the ordination of 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.'" Defrocking, other resolutions
According to the Times, church experts felt that the more far reaching decision involved the reinstatement of the pastor Reinstatement
and that the rulings provided support to the conservatives of the church. All
One Judicial Council member said that the decisions shouldn't be read as Holsinger's personal views because they were applying church doctrine and lacked the discretion to rule otherwise. All
However, two other members dissented, in part, to the Stroud decision. Defrocking
The decision to reinstate the pastor prompted concern from both liberal and conservative regions of the country, resulting in a unanimous rebuttal by the Council of Bishops with a pastoral letter stating that "homosexuality is not a barrier" to membership.[ Reinstatement
Although the paragraph mixes the resolutions, there is a structure. Sentences 1 through 3 say how the court ruled. Sentences 4 through 6, the effects of the rulings. Sentence 7, the defense. And sentences 8 and 9, the response to the defense.
I regret that my comments came across as a rebuke. We all are trying hard to improve the article and, at times, make mistakes. I wish my tone had been more sympathetic. I apologize.  ∴ Therefore  talk   18:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will say it again down here. I have separate out the two cases that you merged into one. The original text in this section only contained the Stroud case. --Aeschyla 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectively ask you to re-read your sources. It is false to state that this happened in May 2006. The reinstatement occurred in October 29, contemporaneously with the Stroud decision. What happened in May 2006, the court refused to reconsider this decision. Your rewrite now has confused the timeline -- the concerns and rebuttal occurred in November, 2005. True, the original text only (mistakenly) discussed the Stroud case, but my rewrite corrects this. Please indent your comments. Thanks.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added in your fact that reconsideration was denied. However, I retained my rewrite that discussed the events of October, 2005 as they should be considered as a whole. Please make suggestions here before re-editing.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Judicial Council

I am working in good faith. I have been working well with the other editors of this page for 2 months. I believe that we need to work together on this discussion page to edit the Judicial Council section. I am going to return this section to the original one that was stable for 3 weeks, so that we have a starting point for our collaborative editing process. When we both agree on the changes, we can then save it.

I will start the discussion by stating the facts of the 2 cases that can be found on the UMC web site. Stroud case #1027 began March 2003, decided on October 2005 Johnson case #1031 and 1032 Began March 2005, decided on October 2005. May 2006 denied reconsideration.

You are right, I accidentally put May 2006 instead of October 2005 for the Johnson case. I believe the rest of my edit is fair and clearer than yours. here it is for you to consider with this one date change.

Holsinger is president of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the supreme court of the Church, which interprets church law created by the General Conference. In October 2005, the council defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister. As Neela Banerjee of the New York Times described it, "The rulings served to reaffirm the Methodists' traditional stance against the ordination of 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals."[43] One Judicial Council member said that the 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.[16] Two members dissented, in part, to the Stroud decision, writing “we do not disagree with the legal analysis of our colleagues, although we deeply regret the outcome.”[44]

Also in October 2005, the court reinstated a pastor who had been suspended for refusing to allow a gay man to join his congregation. They "ruled that a senior pastor does have the right to determine who is ready to take membership, and that the Virginia Conference had violated Johnson’s right to due process." [45] Church experts felt that the ruling provided support to the conservatives of the church.[46] The decision to reinstate the pastor prompted concern from both liberal and conservative regions of the country, resulting in a unanimous rebuttal by the Council of Bishops with a pastoral letter stating that "while pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier," to membership. [47] [48]

When I made my edit, I made a huge effort to merge the original text with your rewrites by including most of your new quotes. I would appreciation a comparable effort on your part. These are two separate cases and I don't see why they should be intermingled in the same paragraph. I await your suggestions in good faith. --Aeschyla 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stability isn't a WP criteria. The original text is riddled with inaccuracies, gross omissions and original research. Please don't restore it. Give me a chance here to comment on your rewrite and I'm sure we can come to a mutually agreeable conclusion.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just restored it. I know stability isn't a criteria. But given that all the editors had left it alone for many weeks, it seemed to be the best place to start from. Lets work together! --Aeschyla 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Upon rereading the original, I agree that where we have gotten to is MUCH better. Perhaps we can decide which version to replace it with, and then begin the process of minor edits - a sentence or a word -- not a complete rewrite. --Aeschyla 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Please read up on the WP:3RR rule. If you revert my work again, then you may be blocked form editing which isn't necessary. Please take a breath and let me respond to your rewrite.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please give me a chance to respond. I know that we can work this out amicably. :Please stop edit warring. Please read up on the WP:3RR rule. If you revert my work again, then you may be blocked form editing which isn't necessary. Please take a breath and let me respond to your rewrite.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Your recommended rewrite is far superior to the original and I have no problem with segregating the two cases as long as we keep clear the scope of each comment.

As Neela Banerjee of the New York Times described it, "The rulings served to reaffirm the Methodists' traditional stance against the ordination of 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals."[43]

This doesn't only refer to the Stroud decision but also to the other decisions relating to inclusiveness that you have omitted. We need to put that back in.

One Judicial Council member said that the 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.[16]

This statement doesn't only refer to the Stroud decision but to all the decisions -- the defrocking, the inclusive statements and the reinstatement. Isolating it as you have is misleading.
Therefore, I'm recommending this rewrite:

Holsinger is president of The United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the supreme court of the Church, which interprets church law created by the General Conference. In October 2005, the council defrocked Elizabeth Stroud, an openly lesbian minister. Additionally, the court ruled that local resolutions supporting gay inclusiveness were superseded by church law. As Neela Banerjee of the New York Times described it, "The rulings served to reaffirm the Methodists' traditional stance against the ordination of 'self-avowed, practicing homosexuals."[43] Two members dissented, in part, to the Stroud decision, writing “we do not disagree with the legal analysis of our colleagues, although we deeply regret the outcome.”[44]

In addition, the court reinstated a pastor who had been suspended for refusing to allow a gay man to join his congregation. They "ruled that a senior pastor does have the right to determine who is ready to take membership, and that the Virginia Conference had violated Johnson’s right to due process." [45] The decision to reinstate the pastor prompted concern from both liberal and conservative regions of the country, resulting in a unanimous rebuttal by the Council of Bishops with a pastoral letter stating that "while pastors have the responsibility to discern readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a barrier," to membership. [47] [48]

Church experts felt that these rulings provided support to the conservatives of the church.[46] One Judicial Council member said that the 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.[16]

Now, this, I believe is a starting point that we can discuss further because I still have concerns with the paragraph.
Yes. We can start from this point. Please replace the section with this rewrite. --Aeschyla 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK -- shall do. Give me a sec so that I can clean up the references, and then we can discuss this further with calmer heads (particularly mine!).  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going for a bit of a walk to clear my head. Glad we came to an agreement. --Aeschyla 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. I agree wholeheartedly that it reads much better this way. I took the liberty of adding in the refusal to reconsider from May 2006 and changed this:

One Judicial Council member said that the 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.

to read:

One However, a Judicial Council member said that the 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.

I think the main reason we had such a disagreement was that we were editing the entire paragraph including paraphrases, summaries, additions, and deletions all at once. Perhaps if we change one thing at a time on line we would be fine, but a rewrite of the entire paragraph should be discussed here before being saved. Now that we are in the editing/shortening phase, I expect more whole paragraph rewrites that need to be discussed first. --Aeschyla 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

White Paper Criticism and Defense

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)

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)
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)

Strong opposition?

"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)

Threats for pulling funding from the hospital count in my book as strong opposition. Lets just drop the adjective and say "opposition." --Aeschyla 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i'd say that's about a perfect idea. much more non-point of viewish. SmallRepair 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

White paper rewrite

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.[6] In the paper, Holsinger discusses homosexuality from a purportedly medical standpoint.[7] But the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, the main writer for the committee, said Holsinger imposed his views of homosexuality in the report.[6] According to Wogaman, Holsinger resigned after he anticipated that the committee was preparing to support the moral dignity of unpromiscuous homosexuality.[6]

Supporters of Dr. Holsinger's nomination defend the paper as a review of the relevant medical literature at that time.[6][8] 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.[7] At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said the paper did not represent his current views and was not “an example of my scientific work.”[9]

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)

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)
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)

I am finishing the shortening of every section and am going to save this rewrite to see how it looks. --Aeschyla 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I still need to fix up the references. Give me a moment to sort it out. --Aeschyla 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find the ABCNEWS reference.  ∴ Therefore  talk   can you please help me out. Thanks. --Aeschyla 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Campaign Contributions

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)

If you prefer a better source then OpenSecrets.Org is typically used. [13] This is public information.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

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)

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)
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)

What is next to make the page a GA or A class article?

Maryrebecca, I saw that you were working on references. Are you done? --Aeschyla 19:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
  1. 16 is also weird after the text edit of Kentucky State Government.--Maryrebecca 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. --Aeschyla 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

Suggested restructuring

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)

I don't have a strong position either, but how are you going to handle the "current events" box? --Aeschyla 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

On obesity rewrite

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.[10] [11] He included this as one of his highest priorities at his confirmation hearing.[9]

Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice and to the point. --Aeschyla 21:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On readiness of Public Health Service Commissioned Corps rewrite

During his confirmation hearings, Holsinger indicated the importance of improving the ability of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to respond to emergencies.[9]

 ∴ Therefore  talk   21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

only minor changes:

During his confirmation hearings, Holsinger said that if confirmed he would focus on improving the ability of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to respond rapidly to emergencies.[9]

--Aeschyla 21:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, better still.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deep breath in, deep breath out

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)

I really appreciate all the work you have done on this page. It is nice to have someone with a fresh look. I'm off for dinner. --Aeschyla 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On smoking rewrite

My rewrite:

Holsinger has been a strong advocate for tobacco restrictions, advocating smoking bans[12] and raising excise taxes on cigarettes.[13] At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said one of this top three priorities is “making America a tobacco-free nation”.[9]

Simple and informative. The rest is, frankly, PR detail. Note I again don't use the primary source of his testimony but instead used the NYT reference to same. Also note that the reference to his testimony really forces the issue that these views should come after the section on his nomination.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree you could shorten it further. But it is different to advocate vs implement smoking restrictions. And I think that the actual numbers on taxes are relevant. He pushed further than the officials and politicians. How about this:

Holsinger has been a strong advocate for tobacco restrictions and banned smoking at VA hospitals and the U of K medical centers. [12][14] While in the Kentucky state government, Holsinger pushed to raise the excise tax on cigarettes. "He suggested 75 cents a pack; Kentucky got only to 30 cents." [15] At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said one of this top three priorities is “making America a tobacco-free nation”.[9]

--Aeschyla 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I read all that detail. No one coming to the article cares about the details of raising the excise tax. If they are, that is why Wikipedia invented (joking) footnotes. You do make a good point about advocation v. implementation. Hence, this:

Holsinger has been a strong advocate for tobacco restrictions, advocating and implementing smoking bans[12] and raising excise taxes on cigarettes.[16] At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said one of this top three priorities is “making America a tobacco-free nation”.[9]

I'm a little surprised you were so happy with Occam's work on the White Paper but seem to be a little concerned about this lesser issue. If the reader wants all that extra detail, that is in the sources. Just like in the White Paper. Not to be too pedantic, but indenting comments, i.e., threading the discussion is a Wikipedia standard and improves readability. Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I really think it is already clear from the article that he worked in Kentucky. If the reader is interested in the details of his advocacy, again, the sources tell all.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm asking myself, what is more important, that he is implemented smoke bans or that he implemented smoke bans at such-and-such a place? The former tells all I need to know. The latter is for the curious. But, I'll happily defer to your version if preferred.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I often forget about the indent thing. sorry. I can cut the detail if it is clear how far he went. He did not suggest doubling the tax from 5 to 10 cents, but suggested raising it to 75 cents. there is a huge difference there. Also there is a difference between a smoking ban in one hospital, verses in the entire VA system of 165 hospitals. It is a matter of degree. As for the white paper, it had gotten out of hand and I was glad to have a tidy summary, which I might add was very nicely done. --Aeschyla 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Location does not matter to me, but the size of the ban is important. It is also of note that in 1991 when he restricted smoking in the VA, this was unusual and controversial. This demonstrates his ability to push for important health issues even when difficult -- very important for a surgeon general and relevant to the Carmona complaints.--Aeschyla 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Being from Lexington, I want to make it clear to the reader that Holsinger had nothing to do with our city smoking ban. So how about:

Since 1991, Holsinger has been a strong advocate for tobacco restrictions, advocating smoking bans in hospital systems[12] and raising low excise taxes on cigarettes to the national average.[17] At his confirmation hearing, Holsinger said one of this top three priorities is “making America a tobacco-free nation”.[9]

Thoughts?--Maryrebecca 04:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination controversy

Hi. Wow, you guys have obviously worked very hard on this. Good work. I don't have the time to be as on it as I was in weeks past, so I'm not going to making any edits. I would like to add a few comments, which I hope you will consider. I think its really important not to express our opinions in the article. The nomination for surgeon general controversy section really has that flavor to it. The article should present what other's in the press and in the Senate have focused on as important, not what we think is important.

  • The section has too much information about internal Methodist Church politics. This has not been a major focus of of the Senate hearing, or the objections of gay rights or medical groups. It should be mentioned, briefly explained, but not analyzed in depth. That info belongs in an article about The Methodist Church and Homosexuality.
  • On the other hand, a very large focus of the attention regarding Holsinger's nomination has been on the 1991 white paper, yet that section has been shortened, and the most often quoted passage deleted. This passage has been consistently referred to, as has the paper as a whole. In his statement at the hearing, Senator Kennedy read a letter from one of the authors of the paper that Holsinger quotes in his paper. In that letter to the Senator, the physicians "denounced the 1991 paper as wholly unscientific, biased and incredibly poor scholarship." Kennedy read this at his opening statement of the HELP committee. [14] Holsinger has tried to distance himself from the paper, and call it unscientific . . . but that hardly changes the fact that 1. he is the sole author 2. he wrote it when he was a physician, 3. he wrote will Undersecretary of Veterans Health 4. A huge amount of attention and focus has been on this paper. Indeed, I think its fair to say it is the most notable document that Holsinger will ever publish. It is noteworthy purely because of the attention it has received - from both supporters and detractors. Consider that some who supported Holsinger before the HELP hearing (some religious social-conservatives) are outraged that he has not stood by the paper, which they view as medical fact. [15] [16] It is noteworthy, simply from the point of view that a medical professional, would write a paper called "Pathophysiology" of anything, with a one page bibliography of scientific papers, that he would later call "not a scientfic paper." (Aside, what exactly is it if not intended to be 'scientific'? Fiction? A short story perhaps?)
  • The quoted section about the pipe fittings is more than funny. It's extremely noteworthy, because it is the most quoted section from the only Holsinger publication that became a major focus, before and during his nomination hearing.

OK - that's enough from me. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!! Touro OsteopathicFreak T 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to the page; I was wondering if you were on a walk about. I do not think we are done with the Judicial Council section, but the conversation got a bit heated so I think we will return to it after other easier sections are completed. So I agree that it is too long.
As for the white paper, I still think it can't be the most important document he published, because he did not publish it. As a science teacher, I assume that Holsinger meant that the paper was not written for a peer review and therefore is not a "scientific paper". I watched the hearing and I did not hear mention of the pipe fitting. I think the news has reported this statement often because it is so outrageous, not because it is noteworthy. As for Kennedy's opening statement, I might agree that some of it should be included.
I think we should be careful about including information from Christian groups like LifeSite and NewsByUs, because I can easily find articles from Concerned Women for America who say that the CDC backs Holsinger's paper with their 2005 HIV report on male homosexuality. [17] Or an editorial from a member of the Family Foundation with the same information. [18] I don't think adding either is a good idea. --Maryrebecca 05:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't think that OsteopathicFreak was suggesting using them but pointing out this paper is considered valid by some, it is OK to utilize sources that have a clearly partisan viewpoint, religious or otherwise,

as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.

However, you could argue that these opinions are so extreme that they have no place in Wikipedia -- which is arguable.
To OsteopathicFreak: In tonight's rewrite, I took some of your suggestions by shortening the other sections, putting it at the top of the controversy section (and moving the entire section to above his medical views) and making it clear that the controversy is largely concerning this paper. I do feel that the current state of the text provides balance. While allowing for the opinion that this paper is based on then-current data, it goes on to state that critics believe it is both non-scientific and written with a political agenda, the latter, twice. We could cite third party's descriptions of the contents or Kennedy's comments (not from the primary source, tho), but then we would be responsible for adding in balance from conservative sources. Personally, I feel that there is balance and a-plenty o' sources to allow the interested to persue further. But, I'm open to suggestions on how you would like to word these additions.  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Just posted my rewrite and restructuring of the article. My first goal was to write the information with more of a succinct NPOV style.

  • I incorporated Aeschyla's ideas into the Smoking section.
  • I took OsteopathicFreak's ideas into consideration by a) pushing the 1991 paper to the top of the discussion and b) shortening some of the other issues involving homosexuality.
  • I added in a section concerning the controversy over the independence of the office (incorporating the existing text and adding to it).
  • I added to the obesity section about Dr. Holsinger wanting to ban ads to kids.
  • I split out the Contraception section into Sex education and Morning after pill.
  • I added the controversy about stem cell into that section.
  • I moved the HIV education section up to his career.
  • 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.
  • I excised the entire Religious affiliation section.
  • I cleaned up some references. And on and on.

Notice that the only use of his testimony and written statement is biographical. Nor am I referencing the actual decisions in the Judical Council section. We are not supposed to judge what is of importance in primary documents nor how to interpret them. To quote WP:RS:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

I still would like to shorten some of the biographical detail. But at least we are down to 27K!  ∴ Therefore  talk   05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the page last night; I would like to take a day or two to digest all the changes that you made and discuss them before working on the biographical detail. I want to be careful on shortening the career section too much since it represents a lifetime of work.
I still have a question about primary sources, how is the testimony (which is public record) any different from the political affiliation (which is public record). I have not seen a secondary source mention Holsinger's donations to the Republican party. This was my question earlier about the source of the material. If there is no secondary source, I think the section should be removed.
Again, being from Lexington, I have understanding about history that others don't. I think the information about Stem Cell Research does not read the way I would like it to. The law that Holsinger opposed went further than Bush's regulations, and would criminalize doctors and patients. The way that section is written makes it sound as if he has changed his views, and I don't think he has. I will look for a reference from 2002 to show you the discussion that occurred in Kentucky.
Sorry about the references, but I included the entire reference with multiple use references because the page was changing so quickly that the original tag was being deleted and the information was missing from the reference section.--Maryrebecca 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You make a great point about his political contributions, Maryrebecca. I've changed it accordingly. Thanks!
I don't believe you need to be from Lexington to understand the complexities of stem cell research. I was born there (my parents are native UKers) and I don't think that gives me an edge. ;) If the characterization of his 2002 testimony requires balance, then I would recommend finding a source that says so. The fact that he has been criticized by the right on this matter is, a fact and must be included. Not because we agree or disagree with the criticism (that is POV) but because it is a verified fact. If their characterizations are incorrect, then we need to provide balance from an additional source.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your changes. Overall looks good. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I incorporated Aeschyla's ideas into the Smoking section.
Can you please find a way to add in the UK medical centre smoking ban. Every place he went, he banned smoking. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That strikes me as unnecessary detail. Your concern was that he did more than just implement smoking bans but the scale was significant. And I agree. Banning the entire US VA hospital system was significant (that he was successful in the implementation in the face of opposition). However, if you feel that the reader would find added value in including a local ban, then feel free to add it. My concern is that its insignificance to the reader damns the subject.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I took OsteopathicFreak's ideas into consideration by a) pushing the 1991 paper to the top of the discussion and b) shortening some of the other issues involving homosexuality.
looks good. On the judicial section, Bishops cannot reject the Court's rulings - this is factually inaccurate. So I merged Bishops and committee members. I also prefer the image to be embedded in the text on the right of the article rather than centered. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I will look at this. Again, I gotta remind you, truth is not part of our job description as Wikipedia editors -- only verification of third party sources. Please read WP:V. If you feel the source is inaccurate, your responsibility is not to correct the source but to find an additional third source that corrects the statement.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I added in a section concerning the controversy over the independence of the office (incorporating the existing text and adding to it).
  • I added to the obesity section about Dr. Holsinger wanting to ban ads to kids.
  • I split out the Contraception section into Sex education and Morning after pill.
  • I moved the HIV education section up to his career.
All good. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I excised the entire Religious affiliation section.
fine with me as you also shortened the hope spring church in the controversy. Also in the controversy section, I changed it to "hope springs United methodist church", but alternatively you could say "hope springs community church, a united methodist church" but it is longer. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. it is beginning to look good. For the bio section, I would like to see it discussed here before any information is removed. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is good. I'm concerned that some of the discussions from the past viz-a-viz the bio section have not been implemented. I will be focusing my attention on those areas next, tho. Please understand my objective: article improvement. I guarantee that the more readable the article becomes, the more useful and enjoyable by the reader. Too much detail that doesn't rise to notability harms the subject. Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Physician professionalism

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

3 cents to 75 cents

Could you please provide a reference to this fact. Neither reference states it. The Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, 2007-05-26 reference states,

Raising the excise tax on cigarettes (he suggested 75 cents a pack; we got only to 30 cents) and supporting tobacco-control initiatives.

Can you provide a reference to the baseline of three cents? Then we can rewrite the section with more clarify. Thanks.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The starting point of 3 cents was discussed in the senate hearing, but I have also read it in a newspaper article. Unfortunately, I have changed location and do not have access currently to back issues of the Kentucky papers. So I will add the sentate hearing reference and get back to you about a newspaper reference. --Aeschyla 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point to me in the written testimony where he makes this assertion? I can't find it. All we can state with verification from third party sources that Dr. Holsinger attempted to increase the taxes to 75 cents but only got half that amount. [18]
It is in the oral testimony. --Aeschyla 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So, you are an official transcriber also of primary sources? No -- you are taking the easy way out. You need, as a Wikipedia researcher, to make the effort to find third party, secondary sources. I'll requote again from above:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

 ∴ Therefore  talk   21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, after a little research, I found a third party reference to the three cents and I added it to the section.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I cannot currently get into any of the pay sites. --Aeschyla 22:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stem Cells

  • I added the controversy about stem cell into that section.
This does not work for me. Using lobby groups' quotes instead of Holsinger's own words is not an improvement. This is a delicate issue, we need his exact words for each reader's own interpretation. We cannot filter this. If a secondary source refers to a primary source, we are allowed to use the primary source carefully where required. I would also argue that the senate hearings are public record and available online to be verified. --Aeschyla 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No, we are not allowed to use primary sources as long as there exist secondary sources that evaluate said primary sources. This is basic Wikipedia. I'm actually a little confused with your concern here. I agree that the partisan group's statements should be balanced. So find an additional third party who balances them. You shouldn't be so protective of Holsinger from criticism -- there are plenty of places on the net to debate these issues. The fact is that Holsinger has received plenty of criticism for his past statements about stem cell from conservative quarters. Therefore, it is appropriate (actually, a responsibility) to be included. I agree with Maryrebecca, find characterizations of his 2002 comments that balance out the sourced statements I included. And I will stand by the New York Time's characterizations that his testimony indicates that he support Bush's policy -- as does the Bush admins themselves say.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The senate hearing is a reliable third party published source. It is part of the public record and is not personally published by a senator or Holsinger. It was recorded by the government who is required by law to provide an accurate transcript to the public. This is a reliable third party published source with a reputation for accuracy. --Aeschyla 20:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, secondary sources are not the same as third party sources. The Rules refer to the latter. --Aeschyla 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The senate hearing record is, by definition, a primary source. I really can't get into a debate on this. I recommend that you go to the discussion pages of Wikipedia policies and debate this. Wikipedia demands that we as editors do not interpret what is important in primary sources nor how to interpret them. If you want, become a journalist, then your responsibility is to read and interpret primary sources, publish it and then reference it here.
If you went to the page for Sartre, say, and used his very words to support your position that Sartre meant by these words that fill-in-the-blank-whatever-your-position-is, you would be immediately reverted. You can't use Sartre's words, even, to promote your interpretation. You can only use established, third party interpretations. It's really that simple. Wikipedia isn't an academic journal for original research. Wikipedia isn't about *truth* but *verifiabilty*. Really, I recommend that you go to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV and debate these issues. Here our responsbility is to discuss how to improve the article by the use of third party sources and not to discuss why we shouldn't have to do that.  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have a Wiki administrator rule on this please. I believe that it is valid to include Holsinger's public health positions as he is up for surgeon general, and where we have an exact quote from Holsinger, we should use it rather than using a paraphrase. --Aeschyla 21:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Administrators don't rule, per se. But you are certainly free (and encouraged) to make a request for comment on this matter. I hope you can show in good faith that you have actually made an effort to research third party information on this matter. You are objecting to the characterization of his comments that he supports the Bush administration? What comments, from your professional, official transcription, did he make indicates that he contradicts the Bush administration? What exactly is the controversy here? That you want to use primary source quotations or that you disagree with the NYT characterization?  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, it is time for me to cool off. I will read the quote and the paraphrase again, perhaps it does not matter. I simply believe that every reader should make their own interpretation of what a quote on stem cells means, and should not to have a single sentence paraphrased for them by anybody. But as I said, perhaps my hot head has gotten ahead of me. I'll take a break. You have not responded to physician professionalism yet. are you in agreement? --Aeschyla 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I am prepared to make a request for comment from the administrators. Here is the verbiage I would use:

A discussion at Talk:James W. Holsinger#Stem Cells and Aeschyla has requested admins comments. Aeschyla wants to quote directly from Holsinger's Senate confirmation hearings -- which are only in audio form, so they are her personal transcriptions. I have argued that the direct testimony is a primary source and should not be used. I have instead encouraged that she find third party sources that characterize his statements. She responds that, "The senate hearing is a reliable third party published source." I'm unclear of the actual controversy. The New York Times characterizes his comments as being supportive of the Bush administration and that is what I used in the section. She wants to use "I am in favor of doing stem cell research. We are currently doing that. We have an affective [sic] program at the moment and we should continue to track and see how things move forward." instead which is not from a third party but instead her transcription of his audio testimony.

I'll hold off posting it until I hear back from you. I really would prefer that we can handle this amicably between the two of us but having another voice involved can be invaluable.  ∴ Therefore  talk   22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I added in a sourced rejoinder to the criticism from the partisan group.  ∴ Therefore  talk   22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I see the confusion here. The Family Council were not characterizing Dr. Holsinger's HELP testimony but his testimony from 2002. I'll try to make that more clear.  ∴ Therefore  talk   23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not post a request for comment from the administrators. I can accept your new edit, and I see your point that the problem is that the testimony is in oral form and a non-verifiable person must transcribe it. Once it is in written form, I view it as a third party published source... but as that will probably be a year from now, it won't matter! Thanks for your patience in this matter. --Aeschyla 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This statement is very wordy. can you shorten it? "The Family Research Council, the Christian right organization who came out against his nomination, characterized his testimony as supporting" --Aeschyla 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I live and die for shortening. I think I did so without changing the substance of the section. Thanks for *your* patience too, Aeschyla.  ∴ Therefore  talk   00:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that is a summary I like. Lets put it all in one paragraph. --Aeschyla 00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Judicial Council redux

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)

Ok I'm convinced. But I'm adding back in "in a separate case" because right now it sound like the two cases are linked which is confusing. It currently reads that they took out a lesbian minister and replaced her with a minister who had been suspended. --Aeschyla 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right -- I'm kicking myself for not retaining that valid edit.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I throw open the flood gates again with this article? [19] 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)

Ideas for restructuring

I have a few pet peeves, one of which is having a 1. in an outline and not a 2. I know it really should not matter, but it bothers me. (Just as an aside another is to have a this without a noun.) Could we place the Public health positions under Surgeon General Nomination? They are relevant to the article because of the nomination and it would give me the 2. I also would like to change the title of Public health positions because to me it sounds like the jobs that he has held in Public health not his opinions. And to keep repeating the same question, can we remove the political affiliation since it has no secondary source? Could we say he is a republican in the info box? Thanks again for all your help, Therefore, you have made a huge difference in this article. --Maryrebecca 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the political contributions (I responded above). Also, remember that for many readers they don't see the numbering system (it's an option). I see this frequently (these violations of academic outline standards). But, I agree that now that we moved out the HIV education to career that this could easily be a subsection of the nomination.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm unaware that the use of "this" as a pronoun vs. an adjective is a problem in clear writing. Could you provide an example and how you would like to reword it for clarity sake? Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be a bad high school memory. I looked in many of the grammar sites that I know, and they make no mention. I looked in the dictionary and you are correct that it can be a pronoun or an adjective. The things I have learned through editing Wikipedia! Thanks for fixing the 1. and 2. outline issue; it makes me much happier. I am also very pleased with all the work you and Aeschyla have been doing on Judicial Council and Stem Cells. I like the title "Public health stances" much better, thanks.
As another aside, I meant no offense by the Kentucky comment, only that I have been following Holsinger politics for 10 years through our local news. I remember some news articles that others may never have seen because of the local news limited distribution. Small world though. Want to tag team SmallRepair for the rude Kentucky comment? Thanks for adding "involved the severity of the penalties", amazing what a few words will do.
I think I am ready to see your shorter career section. Be gentle, though, I personally wrote a good part of those sections and have shortened them some already. I do not want to lose some of the details, but I understand that I might think some detail is important that you think is not notable. --Maryrebecca 02:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

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)

Depends. Read WP:EL.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope Springs Revisited

It took my reading a tremendous number of Christian websites (very frightening) to stumble on this gem from the Courier Journal. [20] I knew there was a reason I should read the Louisville paper over the Lexington one! I think this passage shows guilt by association and should allow me to remove the sentence about Hope Springs from the controversy section.

Gay activists have questioned Holsinger's role in Hope Springs Community Church, which gay-rights blogs say seeks to "cure" gays of their homosexuality. But church members and its pastor, the Rev. David Calhoun, said its mission has been misrepresented, as has Holsinger's role. Calhoun said one of its recovery groups is for men with various sexual problems, including promiscuity. Gays are welcome to attend but not required to, and nobody is asked their sexual orientation, he said. He also said Holsinger -- erroneously described as a pastor who founded the church -- has nothing to do with the sessions.

--Maryrebecca 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hope Spring sentence does not criticize Dr. Holsinger -- that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Instead, it reports on criticism of Dr. Holsinger, verified from reliable sources (this has been reported on in hundreds of national and international publications) and written in a neutral tone. To remove such a statement based on your contention that it is invalid criticism is a violation of original research. On the other hand, including the information from this article, expanding on the protestations of Rev. Calhoun, in particular that Dr. Holsinger had no role in the sessions, is perfectly valid.
This is a good article. It has information about additional testimony that Dr. Holsinger has given about stem cell research that belies the contention that he only spoke to the severity of penalties on the issue -- at least in 2005. The quote, "'radical homosexual/lesbian lobby' of precipitating 'a crisis' in the church by pushing to approve the practice of homosexuality and gay unions" may be a useful addition.  ∴ Therefore  talk   19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, here is a problem I'm having incorporating this fact into the sentence. The Rev. Calhoun is denying they have a program to cure gays -- and Dr. Holsinger has no involvement in it. That is a contradiction. To expand on the Rev. Calhoun's denial would require some information about what programs Dr. Holsinger is said not to be a part of. (Yes, Maryrrebecca, I just loves to end sentences with prepositions. ;) ). That would require a description of the recovery group for sexual addiction. That may, then, need a balancing statement that there is no consensus in the medical community that sexual addiction actually exists. Or more to the point, his denials may have a need to include the Rev.'s statements, as reported, "the Lexington church helps some gay members to 'walk out of that lifestyle'" which contradicts that the recovery groups are limited to promiscuity. Bottom line: it would require this short reporting of the criticism to be expanded beyond its importance, which was the goal of shortening. Let the criticism be raised, denied and leave it at that. Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the section of Hope Springs to only have the quote from Calhoun, which allows the reader to make their own conclusions. Reparative therapy is placing words in the minister's mouth.--Maryrebecca 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into this later. It seems like a good idea. I really haven't checked the sources well. If the critics did indeed accuse him of reparative therapy, then that is a valid inclusion -- if they said it, that is. As long as it is clear who is making the claim, then the claim is validly reportable. I also need to double check the quote you are using to make sure it is verbatim. But I'm going to worry about other things in the article for now.  ∴ Therefore  talk   02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the 4 sources we are using and none of them use the term reparative therapy. The quote that I used (from an earlier version) is a paraphrase of Calhoun and not a direct quote. I removed both the quote and the term reparative therapy. Sorry I did not check the references first.--Maryrebecca 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me!  ∴ Therefore  talk   03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Small suggestion

One word that I keep seeing appearing in various major publication is "proxy war." As in the Holsinger nomination has become a "proxy war" for democrats and republicans, or congress and the white house over various issues - gay rights, embryonic stem cells, religious beliefs of presidential nominees, etc. This makes it clear that various details about Holsinger's life are being scrutinized and manipulated by both sides, for their own political agendas. It makes it clear that there's the man, Holsinger, and that his nomination became a political event. He may be a doctor who just wants to be surgeon general, but because of his paper initially and then former SG Carmona's testimony, the whole thing has become a very big deal. It both is and isn't about him directly. As long as you make this clear, I think you can discuss all of the important issues fairly. There's the science of this debate, and then there's the politics. Both are important and noteworthy.

Also, I don't understand the point about him not publishing the paper. He wrote it. He put his name on it. They are his words. This is not in dispute. He has never said he didn't write this, or that he wished he hadn't, or that he regrets writing it, or that he strongly disagrees with the thesis of the paper, or that his views as represented by the paper have changed significantly from then to now. (Others have said this about him . . . but that's a bit different, though also noteworthy IMO.) Touro OsteopathicFreak T 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the proxy war. My only point about his not publishing the paper is that it was not written as scientific paper for peer review. I have no issues including the paper in the article as it is noteworthy. You are also correct that I did not hear him say that he disagrees with the thesis of the paper, only that the same questions would not be asked today.--Maryrebecca 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's Washington -- everything is political, almost by definition. How a senator reacts to the 1991 paper (by condemnation, or justificaton or apology) would naturally correlate to how they feel on issues of homosexuality which is a political issue (i.e., policy matter) informed by ethical or moral positions. Dr. Holsinger has said the paper doesn't represent his current views. He has said that the paper wasn't scientific -- which if you read it, isn't hard to conclude. He was, at the time, leveraging his medical and public health credentials to create a quasi-scientific document in order to influence policy at the church. To me, that is the crux of the issue. Would he be as willing to bend scientific ethics again to promote a political agenda, either his or his bosses? The previous occupant of the position would not and resigned and then publicized this conflict. The question then raised was Dr. Holsinger chosen partially (not wholly) because he showed a willingness in the past to bend science to political ends? I don't know the answer to that question but that is a valid question to pose.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue of being "published" is technical. It wasn't "published", i.e., not in a scientific journal. It would have never passed peer review without ridicule and would have permanently stained his reputation. He did not write this as a scientific paper, as he has testified.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"It's Washington -- everything is political" - agreed. However, what's interesting is that generally the position of surgeon general is not a political one. I don't know if a presidential nominee for surgeon general has ever not been confirmed with ease. This would be interesting to look into, or even what the vote breakdown for last several nominees were. Touro OsteopathicFreak T 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that used to be the theory. That is what is so fascinating by the Carmona testimony. He says that, although it has been more egregiously politicized in the Bush administration, he had conferred with past generals and heard similar problems -- including Koop. Remember that Elders was forced to resign for her public health position (or was it stance?).  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Agreed that it should not be political, but there have been Surgeons General that were not confirmed with ease. It took Koop a year to get through confirmation process. As a woman, I feel really uncomfortable with a Surgeon General who is philosophically opposed to abortion; however, he was one of the best we ever had!
After Elders, we went three years without a Surgeon General. Dr. Henry Foster never got confirmed because he said that he had performed abortions. Conservative senators attacked David Satcher bitterly and delayed his confirmation hearings because he opposed a federal ban on "partial birth abortions" which allowed no exception to protect the woman's health. --Maryrebecca 01:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)