Talk:Richard Scrushy/Archives/2012

Neutrality - early life

The section about serving wine & cheese in the trailer park is not what I would call neutral. It's playing on a stereotype of what people living in trailer parks are like and what they should or shouldn't serve to their guests. Mooveeguy 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The company didn't have rapid growth due to bad accounting, it was actually a very solid company, and experienced true growth. Then, desires such as being the first company to operate hospitals in all fifty states, the company was driven into the red; which is when the bad accounting began. It's a perfectly good company, and very well developed, I don't think its entire existance should be credited as a product of poor accounting. We also need to add the SEC trial, and him being indicted on bribery and conspiracy to give healthsouth control of a state hospital board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.194.58 (talk • contribs)

Career and HealthSouth

Why is there no mention of his leaving Healthsouth? Or of his refusal for several years to step down as a boardmember? I appreciate that it would be difficult to properly cite such inflamatory issues, but the article just does this weird segue from "growing the company" to "fighting legal battles". --138.26.82.53 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mother Jones magazine (Aug 2008) mentions Scrushy having a bronze bust of himself put up at HealthSouth. Seems more worthy of mention than the number of his grandchildren. 24.20.194.42 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure of the EXACT figures, the numbers in this section of the article referencing Healthsouth's earnings are CLEARLY wrong. There is no way their earnings in 1997 were $100 million. Perhaps $1 BILLION, but likely more than that. I can't believe no one has said anything. They had a cash purchase of another company in the 1990's for $250 million, for goodness sake! Further, near the end of this section, the article is poorly written, saying something like "...healthsouth was seeing 120,000 patients a day and earnings were $100 million, making Scrushy...". This implies Healthsouth's earnings were $100 million, when in fact, it is trying to say Scrushy's PAY was $100 million. Kenfo 0 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just plain "making sense" - Legal Battles - Birmingham trial

"Five consecutive HealthSouth chief financial officers had all pled guilty to fraud and each of them implicated Scrushy, but Scrushy was acquitted on all 36 counts that were brought against him.[1]

On June 28, 2007, Scrushy was sentenced to 82 months in federal prison, three years probation, $267,000 in restitution and a fine of $150,000."

So after he was acquitted of everything that he was charged with, they sentenced him to 82 months in prison?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.67.20.49 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

CNBC

CNBC has featured Mr. Scrushy and the whole HealthSouth scandal on tonight's episode of American Greed. See [1] for more info. Oldiesmann (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A puff piece

"Making his dream a reality"? "Astonishing"? Come on, people! This is an encyclopedia, not a P.R. department! — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This article really is an embarrassment. I'm going to try and work on it today. I'd like to get the IPA pronunciation for his last name, but I've never really figured out IPA. The New York Times article The Rise and Fall of Richard Scrushy, Entrepreneur gives the pronunciation as SCROO-shee, so we do have a source for it. --auburnpilot talk 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done the first half, added quite a few references, and tried to tighten the wording. I'll get the second half later today. --auburnpilot talk 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Now that I've finished reworking the article, I've nominated it at WP:GA. --auburnpilot talk 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard M. Scrushy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems when checking quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I made a couple of minor copy-edits

   b (MoS):

   • Complies sufficiently

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced, reference #78 {http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/08/ap6399620.html} is a dead link. Where the same page is referenced, e.g. Matulich, 337, then the cite should be link to the first instance. I changed this for (Jennings 2006: 31) as an example. I am not sure that the subject's name needs a cite as at the top of the artcile. This looks odd. The references to blog.al.com should make it clear that the work is the Birmingham News.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold whilst the referencing cited above is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   All OK, thanks for your heard work, pass GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jezhotwells. I've consolidated the references and removed the dead link (an existing reference contained the same quote and content). I also fixed the typo within the reference to the Birmingham News article that prevented the publisher information from appearing. As for the reference for Scrushy's name, I added this simply because he has gone by several versions of his name. Growing up, Scrushy was known by his middle name, Marin, then dropped Marin and began using Richard. After a few years and quite a bit of success, he added the M back into his title and has since been known as Richard M. Scrushy. Because his middle name is not commonly known, I added a source to guarantee verifiability. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article sourced to self-published source, violates WP:SPS

Article is heavily based on self-published tome by Eddie Curran who used the vanity press iUniverse.com. His work was not vetted and is in clear violation of WP:SPS Skywriter (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The book by Curran was added here by an editor who has no other contributions to the article, as far as I can tell. The book was never used anywhere in the article as a reference. --auburnpilot talk 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)