Talk:Bill Frist

POV tag

Per the edit war between Ollieplatt and Khanartist. --Boothy443 10:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not much of a war as of yet. I agree now that "fraudelently" is not the right term to describe the cat incident, though Ollie's new compromise needs a grammar rewrite. I don't see any reason why the information on his sons' DUIs should be removed, and I've yet to check on the tsunami-trip thing, to be honest. If there's an honest-to-goodness controversy there, so be it, but as of now I don't see how he's different from the thousands of other visitors to the disaster areas who took photos. As for the book thing, what's the problem with including it? I remember his Clarke criticisms quite well, and if he's done the same thing he maligned another person for, it should be included. Anything I missed? Khanartist 10:15, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

This again? I remember OlliePlatt being angry because the article on Russ Feingold mentioned that people want him to run for President in 2008. Apparently that was POV because "anyone" can run for President. I hope this isn't going to happen any time anything positive is written about a Dem senator or anything negative is written about a GOP senator. --JamesB3 17:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

two sons arrested for DUI

I removed the sentence about his sons' drunk driving convictions as these have little relevance to Frist himself. I also attempted to revise the wording on the Clark criticisms so that it's more readable. Kaldari 03:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what is irrelevant about the drunk driving convictions of his underage sons. It is the main example of his lack success as a father. 141.156.190.208

I'm certainly no fan of Frist, but discussing his children's criminal records seems like a cheap shot and hardly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 23:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's no more nor less relevant than listing their current academic status. As far as I'm concerned, the entire paragraph can go. —Korath (Talk) 23:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we restore this sentence, but there should be a record of what we're talking about here on the Talk page. The deleted sentence (with footnotes from the Tennessean and NBC News) read as follows:

"Harrison and Jonathan have both been arrested for drunk driving." [1] [2]

What about the following paragraph?

Senator Frist has refused to answer reporters' questions about the drunk-driving arrests of Harrison (21 years old at the time of his arrest, May 2004) and Jonathan (17 years old at the time of his arrest, May 2003). Through a spokesman, Frist called the charges against his sons a "personal matter." [3][4]

It would be good to hear arguments, pro or con, about why or whether this belongs. Sandover 08:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should go. It belongs in an encyclopedia article about the children, but not in Frist. A perfectly parallel example: Al Gore's son Al Gore III's marijuana and DUI arrests are nowhere to be found in the father's entry, and nor should they be. Until Frist proposes arresting parents for their children's crimes, the fact that he refuses to answer questions about his family is just good judgment, and has nothing to do with his political or medical career. FRCP11 20:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur that the issue of Frist's children being charged with drunk driving is a cheap shot. He has no control over his adult children. He is not responsible for their decisions. If there were a showing that he supplied them with the alcohol prior to their driving, there might be some case.

Whitfield Larrabee 04:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Medical Ethics

Diagnosing a patient based on a few minutes of video tape, without examining the patient or her medical records is considered a breach of medical ethics. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a statement. I could compromise and say "considered by some" or "considered by many". Ace-o-aces 17:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can get a quote from the AMA regarding ethics, and the proper methods for diagnosis, that would probably be acceptable. Khanartist 20:26, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make pronouncements of judgement, but rather to report on the actions and judgements of others. If the AMA or some other group has condemned Frist's statement as a breach of medical ethics, we can report that in the article. Saying "some consider" or "many consider" is a weasel term, which should be avoided. Please also refer to Wikipedia's policies of no original research and neutral point of view for further guidance. Kaldari 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the parenthetical reference to the Schiavo autopsy, I edited the article to reflect the fact that although Ms. Schiavo's brain's condition was consistent with a diagnosis of PVS, it did not actually prove that she was in a PVS. SS451 17:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Experimentation on animals

Some of my edits concerning Dr. Frist's experimentation on cats were agressively edited out. I have reinserted a portion of the edit regarding the Animal Welfare Act, although I have deleted the portion which is under dispute, and have modified the language somewhat to molify the editor who originally deleted the passage. I will need to look into that editors claim that the Massachusetts Animal Cruelty statute was not in effect in 1970. I have my doubts about that claim given the statute's extensive references to overworking farm animals. I don't believe that all of the sudden became a great cause of concern in the years since Frist was the Dr. Mengele of animal experimentation. Whitfield Larrabee 04:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The animal-cruelty laws were amended well after 1970 as part of the animal rights movement to permit pounds to restrict donations. When Frist went to medical school, many states permitted educational institutions to demand that pounds surrender animals. Indeed this is still true in some states today. Harvard supplied Frist with many of his cats, and he went to the pound after he ran out of cats. The same is going to be true of any 20th century surgeon (and the early-20th-century surgeons were experimenting on grave-robbed corpses), and I don't understand why a legal discussion about laws that were amended well after his education are to be such a huge chunk of Frist's biography. I fail to see why animal experimentation is more problematic because Frist directly acquired the animals himself after HMS ran out, and a political biography is not the place to be making arguments about the morality of animal experiments. Are you going to demand that every scientist biography have a paragraph about their use of animals? Every cook? FRCP11 20:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

My grandfather was a surgeon. He did not experiment on animals obtained under false pretenses from the humane society. These claims that you about the circumstances of Frist's actions and the prevailing practices in 20th century medicine are are unsubstantiated. If your unsubstantiated claims about the context of Frist's actions were to be substantiated, they might lend context to the article and could be appropriately included. In disputes of this sort, it is ussually best to add truthful information instead of deleting truthful information.

The cited laws appear to have prohibited the type of behavior Frist engaged in at the time he engaged in the conduct under discussion. Subsequent amendment to the Mass. law increased the penalties for animal cruelty. Frist is a lawmaker. If he violated laws or committed crimes or engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, this is directly relevant to a discussion of his character. Your claims and his claims about Harvard running out of animals are not substantiated in this article. The claims I have made about his violating laws are well substantiated. Frist himself described his acts as dishonest and heinous. Inducing an entity or person to enter an adoption contract through knowingly false representations is at a minimum civil fraud, and may rise to the level of criminal fraud. That the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker may also have engaged in illegal and unethical conduct is irrellevant to our consideration of Frist. The legal context in which Frist engaged in his actions in informative for the reader and will assist the reader in . I don't know that Harvard supplied Frist with cats. If Frist was on the up and up, why didn't he just ask Harvard for more cats? Why did he lie and cheat to get them? If his purposes were legitimate, why does he describe his own conduct as heinous? Rather than skimming over this incident, and in depth analysis of the circumstances and context of the behavior is preferable.Whitfield Larrabee 03:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

1.This article from UPI shows that shelters could release animals for medical experimentation in Massachusetts until 1983, and notes that seventeen other states at the time of Frist's medical school attendance permitted this behavior.

2.As for the source that HMS provided cats, it's the same source that notes that Frist went to the shelter for the cats: his biography. If it's good enough for the one anecdote, it's good enough for the context.

3.Your use of "Dr. Mengele" is offensive. Mengele tortured humans. There's no evidence that Frist acted inhumanely or cruelly towards the cats, or that his experiments were outside normal medical educational procedures beyond the acquisition method. I'd like the suffering and death of my relatives trivialized with facile and inaccurate comparisons.

4.Some medical schools today still use live animals for experiments. That includes Harvard, which held hundreds of primates as of 1998. Ask your grandfather what he did in medical school with animals. He couldn't have graduated without using some. FRCP11 16:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be that you should ad sections to the article making these points. As long as your information is factually based, I have no objection to it. Likewise, if I incorporate factual information in the article that appears sound, I don't see why you should object. Today I reviewed a copy of Massachusetts General Laws from the relevant time period, and I can tell you that there has been no relevant change in the animinal cruelty statute between then and now. The statute was amended in 1969, but only to increase the fine from $250 to $500. The penalty of one year in prison was the same then as it was until 2004. I don't propose including the Dr. Mengele reference in the article. The evidence that Frist engaged in cruel behavior can be inferred from his own conduct and admissions. His use of the word, "heinous" suggests cruelty. Massachusetts anti-cruelty statute references unneccessary killing of animals as being cruel. I did not know that Dr. Mengele killed your relatives...a surprising coincidence. Given that my grandfather died in 1969, it will be difficult for me to consult with him per your suggestion. Whitfield Larrabee 21:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Violation of Massachusetts Animal Anti Cruelty Statute

Massachusetts has the oldest anti-cruelty statute in the United States. It dates back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, whose 1641 legal code protected domestic animals from cruelty. http://www.animal-law.org/library/aplw_v.htm. The editor who claimed that the statute was not passed until after Dr. Frist's "heinous" experimentation of cats is contradicted by the text of the statute and its history. These statutes are "directed against acts which may be thought to have a tendency to dull humanitarian feelings and to corrupt the morals of those who observe or have knowledge of those acts." Commonwealth v. Higgins, 277 Mass. 191, 194, 178 N.E. 536 (1931). See also, Commonwealth v. Turner, 145 Mass. 296, 300, 14 N.E. 130 (1887). I am therefor modifying this entry correct the false suggestion that Massachusetts statutes did not prohibit cruelty to animals during the relevant time period.

Whitfield Larrabee 14:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced emphasis in article=

It's utterly POV and insane that the experimentation-on-animals section is now the largest part of the encyclopedia article. In the calculus of Frist's life, given the number of lives he's affected for good or ill as a surgeon and a senator, the six weeks or less spent as a twenty-something collecting cats who were about to be euthanized from a shelter for medical research probably doesn't even make the top hundred incidents. It's like making George W. Bush's drunk driving incident or Al Gore's marijuana usage the largest part of their articles. Too, the reference to the federal law is entirely inappropriate, because User:Whitfield Larrabee still hasn't given a cite for anyone who claims that Frist violated this law. Why not mention the mattress-tag-tearing laws, also? But every time I clean it up, User:Whitfield Larrabee makes it worse than it was before, so I'll pass this project along to someone else. FRCP11 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV for someone to carefully document something about the character of a politician? If this activity that he engaged in was unlawful, it's important. If this activity that he engaged in was inhumane, it's important. It openly demonstrates that at least at some point in his life, he believed that the ends justify the means. The details surrounding what he did to the animals and how he obtained them is very important. Did he boast about it to his friends? Did he enjoy killing the animals? I don't want to be represented in any way or part by someone like that... and the information surrounding the facts is important to many people who are interested in politics and politicians. POV would be your cleaning it up and deleting facts from it because you are a republican who supports this man. I personally don't care which party the guy is from. I accidentally found out about his actions researching animal cruelty, NOT politics. People who have intentionally harmed domestic animals in the past when it was not an absolute necessity for them to do so really don't belong in office, in my opinion, and I'm sure in the opinion of many others. Since this opinion is probably quite widespread, information that would govern candidate selection based on this opinion... information that is FACTUAL... could easily be the largest factor of importance in this man's life, and from what I have read about him, IS the most interesting thing about him. -JX

Federal Animal Welfare Act

The assertion "It is also claimed that Frist's actions may have violated the US Animal Welfare Act, which regulates experimentation on dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, nonhuman primates and other warm-blooded animals." appears to be untrue. I'm unaware of anyone who claims this other than a single Wikipedia editor. It appears to be original research. FRCP11 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's my fault that the sentence reads like that. I attempted to make that section more NPOV compliant, although if there's no evidence of the claims, the sentence should probably be removed. It would be better to state who claims the violation rather than "It is also claimed...". Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Investigations

Bill Frist is currently under investigation by the U.S. attorney and by the SEC. Is there a reason no mention is made in the article? This seems like pretty serious stuff.

Oh, I see it now. Talk about buried! 67.180.24.204 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy/Autism Contrversy

There is no mention of Dr. Frist's current association within the thimerosal/Autism debate, as described in the Rolling Stone magazine article, "Deadly Immunity", (Posted Jun 20, 2005), written by RFK Jr. Any chance this may be added?

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

The Associated Press calls CREW a "liberal-leaning watchdog group"[5], and if they can do it without POV, so can Wikipedia. It's POV to fail to acknowledge the agenda behind the CREW listing. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington article was also over-edited by the same editor who deleted the descriptor of CREW in this article. -- FRCP11 20:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

fine, so put it in quotes & add the reference. that's how things are done here. otherwise, everyone runs around putting their personal opinions in. if it's not just your opinion, simply provide a reference in the text. i've already explained that to you over at the 'rape' page, and demonstrated in that article how to do it. also, what does 'over-edited' mean. do you think i injected a POV there? i thought i pretty succintly summarized a bunch of jumble into one relevant sentence, with a citation provided (which didn't exist before). Derex 01:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

animal experimentation quote removal

frist's own commentary on the dissection issue was just removed with an edit summary referring to a 'consensus' from 'cfd'. could someone direct me to this consensus? i'm not sure what cfd is, but i don't see a consensus here on talk for it. it seems like quite a surprising consensus to remove the man's own words about the issue. thanks. Derex 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See [6] and [7]. Should read RfC, rather than CFD. In early September, User:Whitfield Larrabee turned the Frist article into a lengthy original research NPOV dissertation about a minor incident from Frist's medical school career. I asked for input through the RFC process on 22 September, and User:Carbonite edited it into something that fit into the article. Now WL is trying to gradually revert to the original problematic piece through a series of edits including original (and incorrect) research, mischaracterizations of PETA's position, and again distorting the tone of the article by making medical school the centerpiece of Frist's life. Given that the original September revert war ended up on RfC, it's inappropriate for WL to start the revert process again without any discussion on the talk page with what he finds problematic about User:Carbonite's edits. -- FRCP11 04:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

i concur that the article placed too much emphasis on the incident in the past, and could perhaps even stand some trimming now. however, frist's own words about the incident hardly seem the place to trim. it might even be a good place to add something else that he's said, of a mitigating nature, if one exists. at any rate, his quote is exactly the sort of clear & unspun fact that an article should rest on. i don't think it's fair to characterize this specific edit as per consensus either for the rfc or talk. anyways, i'd like to wait and see if anyone else has an opinion, but i think it should go back in. Derex 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus is too strong a characterization. Let's review this de novo. Here's the problem. The full quote[8] is:

"And I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy." He went on to describe why he conducted animal experiments: "It can even be beautiful and thrilling work, as I discovered that day in the lab when I first saw the wonderful workings of a dog's heart.... I spent days and nights on end in the lab, taking the hearts out of cats, dissecting each heart, suspending a strip of tiny muscle that attaches the mitral valve to the inner wall of the cat heart and recording the effects of various medicines I added to the bath surrounding the muscle." "I lost my supply of cats. I only had six weeks to complete my project before I resumed my clinical rotations. Desperate, obsessed with my work, I visited the various animal shelters in the Boston suburbs, collecting cats ....It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do."

The deleted quote is "Frist admitted that it was "a heinous and dishonest thing to do" and indicated that he "was going a little crazy" at the time." It seems to me that just using those twelve words, out of context, are unfair; it doesn't add anything to the fact that he doesn't defend the action today, but makes it seem that he did it purely out of insane malice. (It's more proof that Frist is a bad writer prone to hyperbole than anything else.) But once you put in the full context, we're back to the problem that the already overlong section becomes ridiculously long. I'm open to your experienced judgment on how to resolve these problems. If your judgment is that the quote belongs and other things should go out, I'd probably defer if the end result is NPOV; but Whitfield has had a lengthy history of POV and original research edits and reverts, of failing to respond to criticism of his edits or suggestions he observe the style requirements in the FAQ, and of making sloppy edits in articles he disagrees with that disrupt the flow of the article, so I'm more aggressive in editing when I see him reverting multiple people's corrections, especially when the subject is being debated in the talk page and he's not participating in that conversation.

The answer may be, as loathe as I am to suggest it, a separate article, though Frist's current troubles make it seem like he's going to be a forgotten footnote in four years, which makes me question the utility of a separate article for an issue that doesn't seem especially relevant even when Frist looked like a plausible presidential candidate. -- FRCP11 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Prior to my adding any kind of edit to the page, there was a quote from Frist from his book regarding Frist's actions. Frist's characterizations of his own actions are highly relevant to the issue. That he described himself as crazy, schizoid and his actions as heinous and dishonest is highly relevant to his character to hold public office. Frist's own description of his actions is not POV. The complete deletion of Frist's admissions regarding his admittedly reprehensible behavior would blatently skew the article away from the undisputed truth. That other users may join in to agree that FRCP11's POV should prevail in the article should make not difference. This can be accomplished through the use of sock puppets and other techniques. Although I think the extensive quote's that I originally posted most fairly address this issue, I acquiensced to a shorter version of the quote to capture the essense and allow the reader to explore the issue in more depth through a link to an article in tne New York Observer containing relevant excerpts from the book. I also have a copy of the book, Transplant, and I can affirm that the New York observer quotes are quite accurate.

--Whitfield Larrabee 15:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Whitfield Larrabee's comments illustrate the problem I've been having with him, even aside from the entirely typical sloppy spelling and punctuation errors in his talk comment. Why on earth would he think that User:Carbonite is my sock puppet, when Carbonite's been on Wikipedia longer than I have? The record will show that my edits have not been POV: I was the first to mention the SEC and U.S. Attorney investigations of Frist, and I modified Carbonite's edit of the animal welfare section so that it fairly acknowledged the crux of the criticism of Frist. See, e.g., [9], [10], [11]. As WL admits, he's performing original research. Once again, he has reverted, even though this is being discussed here. The revert contains original research that is both unsupported and false. It's also a sloppy edit that has extraneous punctuation. The edit summary is affirmatively misleading. Is there something we can do when an editor just steadfastly refuses to follow Wikipedia rules? -- FRCP11 16:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits, the available options for dispute resolution are Wikipedia:Mediation, WP:RFC, and WP:RFAr. Or, for violations of rules such as excessive reverts WP:ANI. If you feel this can't be worked out on talk, I'd suggest seeking mediation. Derex 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

First, the claim that I'm a sockpuppet is absurd. In addition to having been here for nearly a year (previously as User:Carrp) and making over 3,000 edits, I've also been an admin for 6 months. This article should address the matter of Frist's animal experimentation, but it must remain unbiased and adhere to the policy of NPOV. Quotes are often very difficult to present in an unbiased manner due to lack of context. Since this is a summary of the animal experimentation matter, there really isn't a need to include such quotes. It's possible that this should be broken out into a sub-article, in which case much more detail (including quotes) could be included. Carbonite | Talk 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that, as FRCP11 suggests, a subarticle might be a reasonable solution, with a link and a judicious summary in the main article. The problem is that the cat thing really is a significant part of his public perception, at least among detractors. That's not to say it's necessarily fair, but lots of people have heard about it. And it does get thrown around an awful lot as an easy way to dismiss him in general, see personal attack. To an extent, I can understand this; some of those animals may well have been beloved but lost pets; it hits a visceral chord among pet owners. I do think a thoughtful sub-article would serve a useful purpose as neutral reference. For another, this stuff is going to keep on being added back to the article as new editors who think it important come along; a daughter article provides a release valve for that kind of editorial pressure. (See also my comments to Paul Klenk regarding this issue). Also whatever his current troubles, which I think are overblown, Frist is still an extremely important public figure. Derex 15:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's three editors who have suggested a subarticle, so I did it. I used the Sept. 15 version as the basis solely because it was longest, not endorsing it. Derex 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a lack of consensus on this. Although I have no objection to the sub article, to discuss this issue in great detail, I do object to all but a minor reference to this issue being deleted. Heck, I can barely find this issue in the article. It must be an important issue since it has generated a substantial amount of controversy. The elimination of addequate discussion in the main article is a POV and the removal of the material was done without consensus. Three does not make a consensus. The controversy under the current edit has been shunted aside where it will not be noticed. I think a compromise can be worked out here. I will restore a less controversial version of the piece on animal experimentation and include a reference to the Main article that can discuss the controversy in more detail. --Whitfield Larrabee 01:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, one stubborn editor who repeatedly reverts multiple editors does not create lack of consensus or a "substantial amount of controversy." There's no point in a sub-article if the entire crux of it is included in this article. PETA issues press releases at the drop of a fur hat, so the fact that they issued one here is hardly noteworthy, and the arcane legal argument is too much detail. --FRCP11 01:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag & RFC

User:Whitfield Larrabee added a POV tag without following Wikipedia procedure of justifying it on the talk page--which isn't the first time he's played this game. I've removed it, but raised the issue on RFC so that it won't be perceived as solely my decision, since Whitfield has accused me of "stalking" when I've corrected his excesses on other pages. The dispute is presumably related to the consensus reached on "animal experimentation quote removal" above. -- FRCP11 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The same editor continues to try to revert the article, despite two RfCs and several editors telling him his position is not defensible. This is bad enough, but he's making affirmatively false claims, such as alleging that Frist called the use (as opposed to the acquisition) of cats in lab experiments "heinous." If this continues, I will escalate to mediation. -- FRCP11 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation shouldn't really be viewed as "escalation", it's just a way to work things out. I haven't looked in for a day or two, but I think the current handling in the main article is fine: a two-sentence summary + the {{main}} template. Is there still a controversy about that, or is it settled? Derex 16:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the current FRCP11/Derex/Carbonite edit of the current article, but User:Whitfield Larrabee, who's not participating in this discussion, apparently objects strenuously and has been reverting the page daily. -- FRCP11 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Whitfield, what is your objection to the current handling? What specific details do you feel need to be in the main article that aren't there now? In my view, we need just enough details so that the reader understands the nature of the controversy. Then, interested readers can click on for a far more comprehensive exposition than is suitable for the main article. So, what extra details do you feel are necessary for a basic understanding? Derex 20:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Whitfield continues to revert without participating in the discussion. I object to the characterization "Frist also made controversial statements about his mental state at the time he was conducting the experiments"--I haven't seen anyone claim that his statements were meant as an accurate assessment about his mental state rather than hyperbole or that there's any controversy at all about them. The other changes just make the section more verbose without adding data. -- FRCP11 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that there are other sections that have not been shunted off to a side article where the text is just as long as it was when this section was sent off into the wild blue yonder. Quite clearly, the minimization of information has connotations for point of view. Nonetheless, I am willing to compromise on this point if there is a fair summary of the controversy in the main body of the article. A fair summary doesn't mean sugar coating what happened or offering an inaccurate, incomplete and confusing recitation of what happened. There are three elements that need to be summarized in the main article to fairly put reader on notice as to what the controversy is about. 1) Frist repeatedly lied to animal shelters to obtain the cats. This is relevant to Frist's character for truthfulness. 2) Frist killed the cats in his experiments. This is relevant to Frist's level of humane compassion. 3) Frist admitted that his acts were dishonest and heinous. 4) Frist said he was crazy and schizoid at the time of the experiments. If the reader is not given a fair summary of the controversy, the reader has no reason to look further and the parties who moved the article have effectively censored the subject. Although I think a short quote of Frist's statements is the best way to summarize this, I made a shorter statement since quotes seem to be controversial. FRCP11 deletes any reference to the actual statements or any summary of the statements concerning Frist's actions. The NPOV fact is that the statements were made and FRCP11 wants to censor this to advance his agenda.

--Whitfield Larrabee 03:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Whitfield doesn't even begin to address the criticisms of his edit. Who's claiming that Frist was literally diagnosing himself as "crazy" and "schizoid", as opposed to using hyperbole? The Boston Globe sure didn't. There's also no controversy that Frist killed animals in experiments, because there's no controversy over the fact that he was also killing animals that Harvard provided, as was every other Harvard Medical School student at the time. The only controversy was that Frist also performed experiments on animals that he obtained from shelters under pretense of adoption. That's indisputable, it's mentioned, and that's all that's needed to let people know that there's an issue; anything else reintroduces the original problem of imbalancing the article with a gigantic debate over a minor incident from Frist's schooldays.

Whitfield is making this about me, but the current version was written by Derex and Carbonite, neither of whom appears to be a Frist fan. I don't like Frist, so I don't understand what agenda I'm advancing, other than wanting to see a useful Wikipedia article that isn't overwhelmed by trivia, and being annoyed at a particular editor's habit of carelessly editing articles without regard for whether the result is readable, accurate, NPOV, or conforming to Wikipedia style and standards, and then engaging in revert wars without participating in the talk pages when someone dares to disagree with him. He still hasn't apologized for calling Carbonite a sock puppet, either. -- FRCP11 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've filed a request for mediation, as Whitfield is now both reverting and placing inappropriate NPOV tags, all again without discussing on the talk page. -- FRCP11 03:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you go there, can I get some comments on my current version? I think this includes all 4 of Whitfield's details in a fair way. It also provides context for the 'crazy' comment, which I don't think he truly mean literally. But it's not to be totally ignored either, because it's essentially Frist's chosen defense. Derex 03:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the edit is that it still makes it seem like that he obtained the animals for purposes of killing them, rather than for purposes of legitimate experimentation for a medical school project. It would have been crueller not to euthanize the cats after they'd been subjected to open-heart surgery, so that they were killed was a byproduct of the experiments, rather than the point. But I'll abide by whatever judgment you make about my argument. -- FRCP11 04:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

hmm, i don't really see that. it says he did experiments, in which he killed the cats. that's undoubtedly true, and to me it clearly indicates the point was the experiments. i mean he, did pull their hearts out, apparently while they were alive, so there's no need to soft-pedal it with 'euthanize'. he killed them, but for what many regard as a good purpose. would it satisfy you if we said something like experiments as part of a 'school research project' to more clearly indicate he didn't do it just for funzies? Derex 13:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The animal experimentation controversy is currently section 1.1, so it's not exactly hidden in the article. Quotes are appropriate for the sub-article, where the full text can be provided and the context can be presented. I don't believe the quotes are appropriate for the main article due to the bias against Frist. Carbonite | Talk 12:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

i absolutely disagree with you. the quotes are plainly in the context intended. how is better to substiture your spin for frist's own words. it is absolutely not biased the way it was written. i feel very strongly about this and am prepared to put considerable effort into debating it. not because i care about this article terribly, but because i think your argument is 100% absolutely backwards on principle. we are here to present facts, not spin. frist's own words, clearly in the context intended, are undisputable facts. they are exactly the kind of thing that should be included. reverting. Derex 13:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm not a big fan of Frist, so this isn't a case of me trying to insert my spin. I also don't appreciate your edit summary "i believe you are _absolutely_ and _completely_ wrong". This should be a civil discussion, not one where editors are accusing others of inserting their bias.

Including only two phrases (a total of nine words) from an entire book does bias the summary. It doesn't matter whether those are Frist's own words because it lacks any context. We have a sub-article for a reason, to present a detailed description of the controversy. It's 100% appropriate to include full quotes in the sub-article. The main article should only contain a summary and it must be NPOV. Your preferred version does not meet that standard. Carbonite | Talk 13:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

i don't give two hoots if you like frist or not, how does that matter here? i don't care about your motivations, i care about the article. how does "absolutely and completely wrong" morph into an accusation of bias? it is a strong statement of a strong view, neither incivil nor accusatory. second, my summary certainly does contain context. i purposefully crafted those sentences to clearly provide the appropriate context. is it your position that nothing less than a several sentence quotation can provide neutral context? if so, we've got a lot of bias here in the wiki. no, in my opinion your version does not meet the NPOV summary. i find your argument wholly unpersuasive. (that last comment is neither incivil nor accusatory, but rather a clear indicator of how strong our disagreement is). Derex 13:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I explained that I'm not a Frist supporter because your previous comment spoke about inserting my spin. I don't want anyone's spin in the article. I guess I'm just asking for you to be a little less worked up about this article. We can disagree without telling the other person that they're ""absolutely and completely wrong" or implying that their version is simply "spin". That said, I'm confident that we can reach a compromise that meets Wikipedia standards while still containing an accurate and informative summary.

The problem with the quotes is that they're selective. Let's take a took at them:

In a 1989 autobiography, Frist described his deception in obtaining these shelter cats as "heinous and dishonest".

It's already been established (in the first sentence of the summary) that Frist used deception to obtain the animals. There is no question as to the factual accuracy. Using the "heinous and dishonest" quote adds nothing to the summary.

He attributed his behavior to the pressures of school, stating "I was going a little crazy"

This quote is especially inappropriate to include since it comes from a medical doctor. Does he truly mean that he was becoming mentally ill or does he just mean he was going too far? Again, this is much better explored in the sub-article.

I'm very open to alternative versions of the summary, but I do believe that quotes are unnecessary and have more drawbacks than benefits. Carbonite | Talk 14:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Carbonite, I agree I got a little hot, and I apologize. I didn't mean 'spin' as in bias; I think that anytime anyone chooses a particular description that is inherently spin. "wrong", well wrong how: morally, legally, ethically, politically, medically. and how wrong: evil, naughty, rude, shocking, traffic-ticket wrong, or wife-beating wrong. it could mean just about anything across the spectrum. sometimes that can't be avoided, we do have to say something. in this case it can be avoided, by using the senator's own description; we know precisely how he viewed it, what kind of wrong and how wrong. "heinous and dishonest" adds more than that though, it is a marker to the reader that this was a serious controversy about a serious matter, at least one the senator himself viewed as a serious ethical breach. as i said below, i'm open to removing the 'crazy' thing. i think he probably meant it colloquially, and my sentence was structured to provide that context. however, i'm not absolutely sure of that interpretation from reading the longer quote. so, i thought whitfield's request that it be included in some manner was reasonable. i don't think there's any more or less room for interpretation in my short quote than in his longer one. but, i don't really care about this one so much; if anything i think it's fair to include it in frist's defense ... we all go a little crazy (i.e. lose perspective) under pressure. now, as to civility, no excuses, but part of the reason i got hot was the wholesale reversion. i had put a fair bit of effort into structuring that, and had made several improvements regardless of the quotes. instead of working within my overall improved version to remove the quotes, you zapped the whole thing. and that ticked me off ... human nature. but still, i should have been more temperate in my response. Derex 16:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't disagree with Derex's point that quotes are usually better than the alternative, I think Carbonite is right here that the selective use of the quotes presents some bias problems that make the Carbonite version preferable, and that the place for the context is the sub-article. That said, I think Derex's version is acceptable, except for the emphasis of killing over experimenting; adding "school research project" would likely solve that problem, but would like to reach a consensus on the talk page with the other three editors before I start monkeying with the text. -- FRCP11 13:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

i don't really find them selective. the first one is simply how he describe it, that seems a lot more clear than before where we said "wrong". the second is actually his defense, that seems favorable to him. i certainly would strongly object to the inclusion of "schizo" because that suggests more strongly the possibility that he seriously meant a mental illness. i'd be content though to remove the second quote. i put it in there in an attempt to assuage Whitfield. the first one is the quote i feel strongly about. if there's another brief quote to balance the first, so you don't view it as selective, that would be fine with me. Derex 13:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

compromise edit

ok, i've tried to adress the criticisms above. based on comments above, i think everyone is probably satisfied, with two exceptions:

1. "heinous and dishonest" included -- objectors: carbonite, frcp11 to a weak extent
2. "crazy" excluded -- objectors: whitfield, derex to a weak extent

am i missing anything else? this seems to me a fairly reasonable compromise, one that i can live with. does anyone object strongly enough to revert? or can anyone suggest a mutually acceptable improvement? i'd like to at least suggest this version as a baseline for modifications, because it addresses many of the other issues that have been raised. Derex 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable compromise. I can see someone complaining that the "pressures of school" sentence, by itself, may arguably be soft-pedaling too much; I wouldn't object if someone deleted it entirely if they thought it would make the description more NPOV, but I don't have an objection to it staying in, either. -- FRCP11 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to see the first quote moved to the sub-article, but I think I'm in the minority here. I accept the current version. Carbonite | Talk 17:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the edits by Derex with compromise summary. I would agree to that summary provided that there was also a summary statement concerning the controversy over his statements that he was schizoid and going crazy. I would suggest, "Frist said that he was "going a little crazy" and that he was "schizoid" over the whole thing, he may have been using hyperbole to describe his actions." Alternatively, we could say that "Frist made controversial statements about his mental state at the time of these incidents." --Whitfield Larrabee 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems a real downside of Wikipedia if obsessives like Whitfield Larrabee are allowed to dominate the profile of somebody prominent. Doesn't this just lead to Mark David Chapman types determining Wikipedia profiles through their sheer relentless?

can you direct me to a source that makes an issue of the "crazy" or "schizoid" thing? did anyone notable truly interpret this as possibly describing a mental illness, or did everyone take it in the colloquial sense. in other words, was it actually controversial, or does it just sound like it might have been. if the former, citing a source might help provide a way to frame the issue. if the latter, i don't think it belongs. Derex 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In the New York Observer article published on the subject, the writer made the following analysis of Frist actions, "'It was, of course, a heinous and dishonest thing to do,' he wrote. 'And I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career.

'In short, I was going a little crazy.'

I don't know if that implicit invocation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is just a "little crazy" or more deeply disturbing" The article is posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/818905/posts There is also the controversy where the "going crazy" quote was set for in the Boston Globe. --Whitfield Larrabee 22:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Derex, who's repeating what I've been saying for days now. "Going a little crazy" and "schizoid" is affirmatively misleading without context, and the place for context is in the sub-article, so it doesn't belong in the main article. The problem that I have with "Frist made controversial statements" is that it's false. There's no controversy about these statements except that that has been stirred up by a single editor. I've repeatedly ask for a single verifiable instance of controversy (as opposed to humorous jests) over the terms "crazy" and "schizoid" in Frist's biography. The best Whitfield can come up with is Ron Rosenbaum's humorous jest about Frist's use of the term; one cannot bootstrap a controversy by being the only person in Western civilization taking those statements as literal medical diagnosis.

Whitfield's last sentence makes no sense, so I don't know what he's arguing there. -- FRCP11 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

just to repeat, i thought including the quote i had made some sense, but more as a defense of frist than the suggestion of instability. in other words, he was really stressed and really overwhelmed: "a little crazy", so he exercised poor judgement. that's different than having serious mental problems. i think "schizo" was similarly meant in a non-medical sense. the advantage of having the sentence attributed the stress to pressure, stating "I was going a little crazy" is that it gives the same impression as his lengthy quote. however, it also leaves open the possibility that he was being more literal, just as the extended quote does. without an explicit citation of a controversy ... oh my god, frist might be nuts ... i think that is the closest i'm willing to go to whitfield's desired language. i don't think the cited observer article seriously questions his sanity. but even if it did, one minor remark in one not-major newspaper doesn't make for a "controversy". Derex 22:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Does anyone still seriously dispute the NPOV of this page? -- FRCP11 06:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, since there's been no further discussion here. I'm going to go ahead and pull it, without prejudice, since it's the wrong tag anyway. Whitfield, if you want to restore a tag, please apply the section pov tag to the cat thing, unless you actually dispute the entire article. I forget the exact template name, but it's in use over on Karl Rove so you can find it there. Thanks. Derex @ 14:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be {{sectNPOV}}. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems a real downside of Wikipedia if obsessives like Whitfield Larrabee are allowed to dominate the profile of somebody prominent. Doesn't this just lead to Mark David Chapman types determining Wikipedia profiles through their sheer relentless?

Fox news report on stocks outside blind trust

As a resource for current information, Fox news is now carrying an AP report that "Frist Had Stock Outside of Blind Trusts".  BD2412 ^talk 13:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Option

Item currently states: "There has also been controversy regarding the "nuclear option," under which the Republicans would change a rule in the Senate to prevent the filibuster of judical nominations."

Suggest a correction, as this is not a change to Senate rules. The filibuster is covered under Standing Senate Rule XXII, and clearly spells out that a filibuster can occur for any reason (other than budget reconciliations), and requires a cloture vote of 60 votes (a 3/5ths majority) to end the filibuster, with one exception: if the filibuster is to prevent a vote on a Senate Rule change, cloture requires 67 votes (a 2/3rds majority). Obviously, if the GOP are unable to get 60 votes to end the filibuster of a judicial nominee, they'll never get 67 to end a filibuster of a Senate Rule change. See http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm

In fact, the nuclear option involves raising a point of order that the option to use the filibuster on judicial nominations is unconstitutional, which the chair (presumably the Vice President) will rule correct. Democrats can appeal, but it only takes a simple majority to affirm the chair's decision, effectively bypassing both Senate Rules and the procedures to change rules. So it isn't just a rule change. 68.13.104.230 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll?

The fact that Frist is now the front-runner for 2008 is a crock full of shit. Frist won the straw poll because the voting (done in his homestate) was biased towards him. Duhhh. --StevenL 22:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No way, man. Bill Frist will be Pres. in 2009! Go Frist! Woooohoooo! Brian G. Crawford 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

FEC ruling

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=134

Apparently, the FEC just made a finding that the Frist 2000 campaign violated some law or other. The documents are available through the link above, to a press release by the group that filed the complaint. Anyone have a sense as to whether this is worth including? Derex 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

HIV and sweat

We need some sources for when Frist has said "on numerous occasions that HIV can be contracted through saliva" I know this was brought up by Stephanopoulos, but I don't think Frist ever gave a clear answer. He said it would be "very hard", which is not all that different from "nearly impossible". Maximusveritas 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if it's "numerous", but here's some stuff on the Stephanopolous interview you mention. Snippet below from WaPo. [12]. Link to video of the This Week interview.[13]

It is not the first time that Frist has created a stir in medical and political circles. In December, on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," he repeatedly declined to say whether he thought HIV-AIDS could be transmitted through tears or sweat. A much-disputed federal education program championed by some conservative groups had suggested that such transmissions occur.

After numerous challenges by Stephanopoulos, Frist said that "it would be very hard" for someone to contract AIDS via tears or sweat. The Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: "Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV." Derex 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that justifies the statement that's there right now. There probably should be something about that interview in the article, because it was made into a big deal, but I don't think the sentence up right now does the job. I'll give it some time to see if anyone else can find something to back it up. -Maximusveritas 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)