Talk:Rick Scott

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jim Rutenberg (2009-04-01). "Health critic brings a past and a wallet". NY Times.

Contradiction

Intro states that Mr. Scott was born in Illinois; bio section that he was born in Kansas City, Missouri. Does anyone have a reference to show which is correct? Vgranucci 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It states he was born in IL and raised in Kansas City...seems to be ok to me 72.17.254.242 22:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia / HCA

There is an awful lot of Columbia/HCA stuff on here that appears to have occurred long after Rick Scott left Columbia/HCA. Reasonable folks can debate all day about how much of that chapter of Columbia/HCA's history should be included in Rick Scott's bio. The fact is, the man was never implicated in anything that the company ultimately agreed to pay fines for - and I'm quite certain he didn't have a say in settling those fines. Had he been at the helm years later, Scott may have chosen to fight the government in court. The point is, we don't know what might have happened because Rick Scott wasn't with the company. Thus, I submit to the Wikipedia community that much of the Columbia/HCA history that is included in Rick Scott's bio should actually be contained in a separate article.

In this way, readers can judge for themselves what the facts were, rather than having a handful of agenda-driven Wikipedia contributors trying to tarnish Rick Scott's reputation when all anyone can say for certain is that he presided over the company at a time when some folks far below him on the organizational chart made some poor decisions that ultimately cost the company billions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.184.192 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fraud case involving Columbia/HCA Mr. Scott is simply the biggest and most relevant part of Mr. Scott's public life. It's perfectly fair. The captain of the Titanic should absolutely be mentioned with the sinking of the Titanic, even if it's not clear as to whether it was his fault.

If anything, the treatment of Solantic seems unfair in this article. There's no citation at all as to its condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.235.234 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make my point - certainly the captain of the Titanic must be mentioned in the article about the sinking of the Titanic, and likewise, Scott should be mentioned as the CEO for a portion of the time some of the alleged over-billing occurred, but, like the actual article about Edward Smith, who captained the Titanic, the actual information about the sinking of that ship comprises 10-15% of his Wikipedia entry.

Hello to everyone new to the wiki talk pages! Please start the paragraph(s) of your comments with one colon (':') more than the comment you're replying to to keep the discussion legible to everyone else.

Now, to continue...

Presumably the information you were referring were HCA/Frist matters that *have* been moved to a separate article, as nothing beyond the eventual settlement outcome — pertinent to the laying of charges, thus reasonably mentioned — seems to date from any time after his removal as Columbia CEO. What you seem to have missed is that he had no choice as to whether to 'fight the charges' because he was removed from the helm of the company by HCA as a direct result of those charges, about eight years after HCA acquired Columbia. Apparently HCA didn't feel that someone not charged with a crime was therefore not implicated in it. From what has been written here and today in the New York Times, it seems probable that the fraud was a direct and foreseeable if not necessary consequence of the fundamental business model of Columbia; and, indeed, there was an exceptional (unusual) legal relationship established between Scott and the company such that it would be (as it eventually was) difficult to find him liable for any such fraud, were any to occur for any reason.

I agree with you to the extent that that section of the article does not strike me as well written or carefully-enough NPOV, but please resist the impulse to use... rhetoric, rather than the facts themselves, in making your case about this. As you may know, edits to articles made with reference to what does or doesn't seem fair rather than a careful development of known facts may sometimes lead to an edit war, which can lead to lockdown and a concerned attempt to carefully develop a body of referable facts by several hundred people. Given that R. Scott is currently involved in a media campaign against the current Administration's proposed healthcare reforms, this might have unfortunate political repercussions just in and of itself, regardless of anyone's allegiances or intentions.

The IP address 68.100.184.192 is assigned to Cox Communications, and appears to represent a physical node in Alexandria, Virginia, which is a residential suburb of Washington D.C. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would, as a follow up, like to bring attention to the actual edits performed from that IP address soon after the comment was made. It involves the removal of dates and figures, including some from the same year in which Scott was removed as CEO of the company. The details removed pertain to the investigation, subsequent charges, and sentencing. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives for Patients' Rights

I work with CPR and I want to point out an inaccuracy in the summary of policy position and quote of Mr. Scott.

Specifically, the article as presently written states:

Scott has stated he will support any health plan that includes all four of these principles, and has solid support for the national board created by the Obama administration in the stimulus bill. "Any meaningful health care reform must be rooted in the patient-centric principles of choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility. Any program that doesn't include these free principles and has Washington bureaucrats making decisions instead of the tax dollars flowing to entrepreneurs like myself is not meaningful health care reform."[3]

There are several problems. First, the quote appears to reference a press release on the organization's web site, but some of it has been altered from the original: "Any meaningful health care reform must be rooted in the patient-centric principles of choice, competition, accountability, and personal responsibility. Any program that doesn't include these free market principles and has Washington bureaucrats making decisions instead of doctors and patients is not meaningful health care reform," Scott said.

Second, Mr. Scott has not expressed support for a national board nor an opinion that he would support “any plan” that contains the four principles. In fact, the "National Board" ad featured on the CPR home page directly contradicts the assertion that he favors a national board. Facts1918 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of being accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic, we're generally best-off using independent, reliable secondary sources as the basis for this (or any) article, rather than press releases and other sources directly affiliated with the subject. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times pieces both cover the broad outlines of CPR's agenda, and we're probably best off using those outlines rather than a verbatim rehash of an organizational press release. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, that Wikipedia prefers to use "mainstream media" rather than actual quotes from the official source, then Wikipedia is a joke.

Liberal groups and Wikipedia

Hey - regarding this addition, which is currently the subject of some edit-warring. I think it's reasonable to mention that liberal/pro-Obama groups have been campaigning against Scott. It's probably even reasonable to mention that this campaign has included (per the Times) "unflattering additions to his Wikipedia biography." But the edit by THF stretches the source a bit.

It's not exactly a matter of simply disagreeing with Mr. Scott's politics; the Times article indicates that these groups are driven by a desire to publicize his background (specifically his ouster from Columbia/HCA during the investigation which concluded with a guilty plea for at least $1.7 billion in billing fraud). If we mention Wikipedia, we should probably indicate (as does the Times) that until these "unflattering additions", Mr. Scott's Wikipedia article made no mention of the Columbia/HCA story, which appears to be a relevant part of his biography. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has no way of knowing that "liberal groups" are posting unflattering items to this article. That is why I stated it is opinion, which it is, and unless someone can prove otherwise, this charge should not be included in the article. --Navy II (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported as fact by the Times, which is generally a reliable source. If you feel they've made an error, the most productive course would be to contact the New York Times and ask that they issue a correction. The Times has a very active corrections department and they generally take reader complaints along those lines quite seriously. Arguing here, along the lines you're attempting, probably isn't going to be as productive. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I think you and I are probably pretty much in agreement, I'm just saying that this is a claim that almost certainly lacks merit. It makes it sound like there's a "vast left wing conspiracy." LOL --Navy II (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the NY Times article, it does not directly claim that liberal groups made the "unflattering additions to his Wikipedia biography". Instead, it says that liberal groups defending Obama's plan are "are seizing on Mr. Scott’s background through" the Wikipedia article's unflattering additions. This can easily be interpreted to mean that the liberal groups publicized rather than made the additions; at least, that is how I interpreted the NYT claim (though I can also see the other interpretation). I suggest that the Wikipedia article be worded more carefully, so as not to infer something from the NYT article that it does not directly say. Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eubulides, excellent point - I inserted the word "citing," which should make all happy. --Navy II (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name in first detailed section (Early life and education)

The criteria for the name in the first detailed section should not be a person "refers to himself"; rather, it should be the name that is most generally recognisable, or, rephrased, the name by which the subject is most commonly known. If Mr. Scott decided to start calling himself "Bubba Scott", for example, Wikipedia would not change the name of the article. The subjects of biographies don't own them.

I'm not sure there is a specific guideline that pertains to the first name that is used in the first detail section of the article (that's rather nit-picky for Wikipedia guidelines, perhaps?), but there are guidelines for article naming that use this criteria:

So, what does Google show?

"Richard Scott" "Columbia/HCA": 1,970
"Richard L. Scott" "Columbia/HCA": 1,510
"Rick Scott" "Columbia/HCA": 1,260

Or searching on "HCA" rather than "Columbia/HCA":

"Richard Scott" HCA: 8,750
"Richard L. Scott" HCA: 2,020
"Rick Scott" HCA: 1,530

"Richard Scott" "Conservatives for Patient Rights": 57 "Richard L. Scott" "Conservatives for Patient Rights": 3 "Rick Scott" "Conservatives for Patient Rights": 44

Both of those searches were for web pages; a search on news pages had similar results.

As importantly, every single source that I added to the article used "Richard Scott"; none used "Rick Scott" (at least that I noticed). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my edit summary, Rick Scott's websites, both Richard L. Scott Investments and Conservatives for Patients' Rights, refer to him as Rick Scott. This is not just "how he refers to himself" but it is his public name. When I Googled him earlier, I got different results than you did, with "Rick Scott" outnumbering "Richard Scott" when paired with Columbia/HCA. I think if you repeat the Google search, you will find it varies greatly. Regardless, as Conservatives for Patients' Rights gets more press, the name Rick Scott will appear more and more. Since this is his latest media push, I feel it's appropriate that we refer to him as he refers to himself in the videos on that site and, of course, on his business site. --Navy II (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged medicare fraud

Columbia did not plead guilty to medicare fraud. Look it up -- even the main text of the wikipedia article acknowledges it was a plea to lesser charges. THF (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sanchez

Anyone catch Mr Scotts interview with CNN's Rick Sanchez? Mr Scott is a joke and a liar. People who are unfamiliar with it may YouTube it Tdinatale (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy dude!Cockerspanielsarethebest (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]