Talk:St. Jude Medical

message: This company either is or is not affiliated with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (Memphis, Tennessee), and the article should say which.    Randall Bart    Talk   19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't related in any way - they're two completely separate entities which happen to have similar names. I agree that it probably should be mentioned in the article, but Wikipedia has a track record of deleting statements to the effect that two confusingly similar named entities are unrelated, even when backed up by references which take pains to address that fact. (Bewildered readers be damned.) -- 162.238.240.55 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Jude Hospital 

message: Removed the single source tag. Previous edit added multiple sources. Jppcap (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Source 

message: Hello, looking through this article I noticed that it is lacking a lot of important information about the company. It could use a “History” section so we can have a better idea of how it emerged from a startup company in the 1970s to a Fortune 500 company 40 years later, a lot of things must have happened in those four decades that the readers would surely be interested in. 
Also, I noticed the “outdated” flag. We should try and update it. In the “Employment and Financial Problems” section, it says “And the company is supposed to announce how much the second round of job cuts, that cut 500 jobs, will save in January.” We should try and look into their announcement and see if the second round of job cuts improved the company’s financial situation, or if they required yet another series of lay offs. 
Furthermore, the “Products” section seems a little bit promotional, due to the lack of sources. This might be why there is a flag for the need of additional citations. It will take some research to reach an adequate level of sources, but a number of us contribute, we should be able to fix the problems on the page.
What does everyone think? Let me know, and we can work together! Adamh4 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Adamh4. However, the current Products is overt promo and MOS. Could be c.u. to fix the sourcing issues. Jppcap (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edits to section, not in bullet format. Jppcap (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Jppcap for getting back to me about my proposals! The Products section looks much better now. The article is still flagged for outdated though, and also jumps straight from the lede to talking about the products...maybe we could look into adding a "History" section? I think that'd make the article more current and clear. Adamh4 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, prev. edit added history heading. Jppcap (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs More Information 

message: Replacing expansion template. Jppcap (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding Early History subsection. Jppcap (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 1990s sub previously. CEO Arrest section does not pertain to St. J. Something to move to History or altogether? Jppcap (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing. Jppcap (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding 2000s sub. Jppcap (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Adding 2010s sub to expand.Jppcap (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the relevant layoff content to the History-2010s. Rest is excessive and promotional imo. Lmk. Jppcap (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing {refimprove} per 50 sources. Jppcap (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Removing {oudated} per links in controversy. Jppcap (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: History