Talk:Richard Scruggs

LATEST CHANGES TO THIS ARTICLE

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I read this article today and found the ending of it incomprehensible. I researched Scruggs' criminal problems and learned that not only was our article unreadable, it was also factually inaccurate. So, I re-did the ending. It now is chronologically correct and gives a thumbnail sketch of what actually happened, without the extraneous material on issues that aren't really related to this kind of article. And the ending now has citations. If you want to add information, please make certain you include citations to credible sources. And keep the article in encyclopedia/Wikipedia form. Scruggs might be a convicted felon, but this is still an article about a Living Person. Doctorfun (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC) (cleanup volunteer)

POV

The page as stands fails to note that Scruggs is a controversial figure, to say the least.[1] - TedFrank 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also no mention of the Ritalin class action lawsuits. -- TedFrank 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... failure to say that Scruggs is controverresial doesn't make this article slanted in point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.239.119 (talk • contribs) — 12.145.239.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, it does. See WP:NPOV. -- THF 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How is Scruggs a controversial figure? Terence7 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the POV tag from the main page. I don't think a link to overlawyered.com (hardly a NPOV site) is sufficient evidence that Scruggs is a "controversial" figure. Terence7 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the POV tag. There is no such thing as a "NPOV source." The standard is reliable sources, and the facts and opinions collected at Overlawyered (which come from, inter alia, the Wall Street Journal and other reliable sources), are both notable and reliable. -- THF 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny that you would cite reliable sources, which states that blogs should not be used. Overlawyered is a blog; it references reliable sources like newspaper articles in order to stack opinions on top of them. The newspaper articles may be reliable sources but the blog opinions are not. Also, the fact that you write for Overlawyered would seem to call into question the no original research policy.

Anyway, why don't you explain what is controversial about Scruggs? That would be more helpful than simply tagging the article. Personally, I don't think the newspaper articles etc. cited at Overlawyered indicate that Scruggs is controversial--it just shows that he is a trial lawyer who has made a lot of money. The fact that there are people (like you) who advocate liability reform and dislike trial lawyers does not mean that Scruggs is controversial, or that this article (which does nothing but state basic facts about Scruggs) is unbalanced because it neglects to acknowledge that some people dislike trial lawyers. It would be helpful if you could explain what you think should be present in the article (clearly you think it is lacking something) and then we could discuss that instead of this tag. Terence7 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any violation of WP:NOR. Can you identify one sentence I've added to this article that violates WP:NOR? (Hint: I haven't added anything to the article.) I'm suggesting that notable and sourced points of view that criticize Scruggs need to be included. I'm not asking to personally write an unsourced essay in the article.

You incompletely cite WP:RS on blogs, which also says "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Overlawyered is edited by Walter Olson, a well-known professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, who has previously written for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, among other credible third-party publications. (Full disclosure: I also write for the site, which is why I am not adding the material from the site to the page myself without discussion on the talk page. For full disclosure, I've also published pieces in third-party WP:RS on Scruggs, though only on the subtopic of Katrina litigation: [2], [3].)

There are other sources besides Walter Olson and myself on the issue.[4]

The point is that NPOV requires the inclusion of notable reliable sources that have different points of view, and the point of view that Scruggs has taken hundreds of millions or more from taxpayers in the tobacco settlement, his questionable role in the Katrina litigation, his role in the Paul Minor criminal case, the pending contempt proceeding against him, and his controversial role in the Ritalin class actions, has not been included, even though these are all notable events. The Wikipedia page should go beyond being just an advertisement for the Scruggs law firm. -- THF 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cite newspaper articles discussing the notable events Scruggs has been involved in, that would improve the article. I don't think anyone would accuse you of conflict of interest for doing that, assuming that you are fair to the sources. I maintain, however, that opinion blogs are not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article. They shouldn't be necessary, either, if you look at the rest of WP:RS: if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it... If the case against Scruggs is so clear-cut then there will be sufficient references in newspapers and other reliable sources to lay out the facts for the reader to decide for himself.

At any rate, the reason I started this discussion is because I think it would be nice to try to improve the article rather than just criticizing it with little stated justification. Let's put some more facts into the article from some sources that we both can agree are reliable. I encourage you to do this because (although I may not agree with all of your opinions on tort reform) you are clearly more educated about Scruggs than I. I do agree that the article should not just be cheerleading for Scruggs — but neither should it rehash debates that belong on the tort reform page. Terence7 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that he has been arrested by the FBI for bribing a judge, does that make him controversial yet??? Nov. 29, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.36 (talk)

I don't know if it makes him "controversial" but his guilty plea definitely makes him a criminal... Terence7 (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lengthy article on the New Yorker website (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/19/080519fa_fact_boyer) about this guy. I am new and not sure how to add it into the main page, but someone else may like to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjackos (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

The article now contains information on Scruggs' indictment, as well as the Ritalin litigation, tobacco litigation, and asbestos litigation. If you think that something in the article is presented in a non-NPOV manner, can you please specify the non-NPOV content? If you think the article is non-NPOV because something is missing, can you say what you would like to see included? Otherwise, if no one objects than I think the neutrality-dispute tag should be removed from the article. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Hood?

"[...] documents were improperly sent to Hood's office" - this is a non sequitur. Did something get chopped somewhere along the line? Facetious Nickname (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Section "Backstory" and POV

Th Backstory section has some inflammatory language that is aimed at trial lawyers in general, and is unsourced. Added POV banner to section and pointed out areas needing citations. Sctechlaw (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The first few sentences of this section need to be removed/reworded.Doctorfun (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The first two paragraphs of the "Backstory" section are lifted verbatim, without any quotation marks, from a story on Scruggs in the May 19, 2008 issue of the New Yorker (page 47). Seefoodandeatit (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire "Backstory" section should be removed. It inserts information into the article that really isn't related to Scrugg's troubles. He didn't get in trouble for forum shopping. He was accused of a bribe. I'm considering just taking this out an re-doing the last half of the whole article. It doesn't make much sense the way it is. Acker's ruling was in an unrelated case, too. Doctorfun (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Scruggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Nov30/0,4675,LawyerIndictedProfile,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Scruggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://djournal.com/news/dick-scruggs-headed-back-to-prison-%EF%BF%BDsays-hes-found-new-life/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011084324/http://oxfordeagle.com/2012/11/breaking-news-richard-dickie-scruggs-to-be-released-on-bail/ to http://oxfordeagle.com/2012/11/breaking-news-richard-dickie-scruggs-to-be-released-on-bail/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)