Talk:Encompass Health

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HealthSouth. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116215135/http://securities.stanford.edu/1008/HRC98/ to http://securities.stanford.edu/1008/HRC98/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910114556/http://www.al.com/specialreport/birminghamnews/healthsouth/ to http://www.al.com/specialreport/birminghamnews/healthsouth/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Questionable NPOV of certain edits by user "BhamAla"

@Mx. Granger: @BhamAla:

I noticed that a large number of edits by user BhamAla appear to be for the purpose of either introducing seemingly promotional material into the article or removing information that reflects negatively on the corporation in question. In particular, I question why the user removed mention of the HealthSouth accounting scandal from the lead in favor of text which describes Encompass as among the "World's Most Admired Companies" and "Most Trusted Companies in America," without any explanation. It is also worth noting that the user also edited the section detailing the accounting scandal to make it have a considerably more exculpatory view of company management, removing a number of reputable sources in the process. StSeanSpicer (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@BhamAla: @Mx. Granger: I don't believe I pinged correctly the first time around, sorry if you've been double-pinged. StSeanSpicer (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@StSeanSpicer: Thanks for the ping. I think the accounting fraud should be mentioned in the lead, as it's one of the most noteworthy aspects of the company's history. I'll restore that and restore the former names to the lead. Please continue to edit the article if you see other ways to make it more informative or more neutral. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@StSeanSpicer: @Mx. Granger: The accounting scandal happened over 20 years ago and is no longer relevant to how the company operates today. It is also covered in-detail in the section titled "Accounting Scandal". Fortune, Forbes, and Modern Healthcare are established and highly regarded business publications and therefore I see no reason as to why recognition by these publications should be omitted. BhamAla (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It's true that Fortune etc are broadly considered reliable news sources, but the "Most Admired" and etc lists are editorial content. An appropriate application of WP:UNDUE would be to use such content as supporting evidence alongside more direct evidence that [x] company is actually considered "Most Admired" or etc by the wider public. Citing them on their own on the other hand is using a fairly low-significance source to definitively characterize the company.

This is especially the case because instead of citing the direct material, you've cited prnewswire publications by the company itself that merely mention that the company was on the list, without mentioning that these lists often contain literally hundreds of companies. For example, Encompass is ranked fourth on the "Most Admired" list within the specific subindustry of "healthcare providers," but is not ranked among the top-50 overall "most admired" companies in America. This is hardly a notable "accolade" - many of the companies in the top ten don't mention the "accolade" at all in their articles, and when they do (e.g. Apple) it's used as supporting evidence tied to specific aspects of the company that are cited as exceptional or admirable by other sources. Simply saying that Encompass is among the "Most Admired" or etc without mention of its fairly unexceptional ranking and without any supporting evidence as to what is most admired is not real content, nor is the ranking itself even significant at such a low ranking. StSeanSpicer (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The accounting scandal is certainly still relevant to an encyclopedic summary of the company and its history. The amount of time it's been since the scandal is not really relevant; it's still one of the most noteworthy aspects of the company's history. Please also stop removing the company's former names, which are important for helping readers confirm that they've reached the right article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

And please stop removing the country where the company is located. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not limited to the United States. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)