Talk:Richard Barlow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
A fact from Richard Barlow appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 January 2008. |
 |
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Richard Barlow. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
[edit] Fact Checking
The article currently states, "Within days of Barlow's sharing his concerns with colleagues at the Department of Defense he was fired." The citations attached to this statement are the Washington Post, Kentucky.com (using a Christian Science Monitor article) and The Economist.
The Washington Post blatently states, "Barlow was fired."
Kentucky.com states that Mr. Barlow "was run out of Washington."
The Economist says, "He lost his job."
- The New Yorker: "Two days later, Brubaker called Barlow into his office and, with no warning, handed him a letter of termination. He stood accused, as he did not know at the time, of being a national-security risk to the United States. He was stripped of all his classified clearances and given three weeks to clear out of his office. Barlow decided to fight the dismissal. He spent the next eighteen months assigned to a Defense Department personnel pool, under surveillance by Pentagon security officers." Relata refero (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What is interesting is that one of the sources cited in the article ("The Raw Story"), but not used for Barlow's termination information, quotes Mr. Barlow saying, "I left of my own free will, relatively speaking. I could have stayed—but I wasn't going to put up with that shit. I was caught in the middle of a massive battle between the cold warriors and the counterproliferation forces in the CIA."
I realize that "The Raw Story" isn't as reputable as "The Washington Post," but I would think that a direct quote from Richard Barlow would count more than a reporter's statement, particularly in such a sensational case. As a general rule, sensational stories should be analyzed with skepticism, and should require the strongest possible evidence.
The article has a fairly glaring inaccuracy at the end, when it states that Richard Barlow lives in a mobile home. He does not live in a mobile home; he lives in a motor home, which he drives to Arizona in the Winter.
What I see in the article is that the author is trying to paint the most pathetic portrait of Mr. Barlow possible, at government expense. The reality appears to be a bit different; Richard Barlow's current life is mostly of his own choosing. The article does not reflect that sense. Pooua (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Washington Post has 2 versions of this story online. The version used in this article does not have any photos; the other version does. Specifically, the other version has a photo of Richard Barlow sitting on the retractable steps of his fairly upscale motor home (the caption calls it a trailer, but it is obviously not a trailer).
Washington Post: Whistle-Blower's Fight For Pension Drags On
The articles and news stories might lead one to believe that Richard Barlow is hurting for money. But, the motor home he owns and lives in is expensive. It appears to be similar to those shown on the website for Fleetwood; new models cost around $275k. Keep in mind that Barlow is fighting to get a government pension that is far from the poverty line, too. So, don't get the idea that his mis-adventures have left him near financial bankruptcy. Pooua (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Pooua (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid we reflect what has been published in reliable sources, and they overwhelmingly don't share that view. The price of these models and putting them together with a photograph is OR. Relata refero (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) And I don't think that mobile home vs motor home is a glaring inaccuracy, especially when the caption says "trailer" and it pretty much looks like a trailer. Relata refero (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in that Washington Post photo looks like any trailer I have ever seen. It is obviously a motor home. The fact that the Washington Post identifies it as a trailer calls their fact checking into question. I don't believe that OR bans the use of brains or eyes, common Wiki experience notwithstanding. Pooua (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you insist its not a trailer, its not a trailer. I find myself unable to fight to the death about it. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that deducing Barlow's wealth based indirectly on photos or articles is OR. However, it is OR either to say or imply that he is wealthy or impoverished, making the tone of the article imply one way or the other. I think that Wikipedia should avoid making sensational claims. What I see in the media sources--and this is a tendency of news media in general--is an effort to hype and sensationalize the story. I am fairly certain that is particularly happening in the situation of Richard Barlow. When this story is told, the natural tendency is to tell it as a "man crushed by government" tale. Wikipedia should not take that tone unless a source specifically describes how this is so. Pooua (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've thought hard about that point, but I'm afraid I don't think that's possible. If you can find a reliable source anywhere that says that Barlow is exaggerating his status in order to process his application quicker, that might be OK to put in, but I don't think we can come to these conclusions ourselves, especially when the RSes are universally against us. Relata refero (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
