Talk:Whistleblower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whistleblower article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Anonymous edits to Whistleblower article

Are revealed here: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Whistleblower --Achim (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tobbacco scandal

needs to be linked too the tobacco scandle, not to the seperate entries for tobacco and scandle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.75.86 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the term

"whistleblowers" it sounds like an english word that would come out of a factory setting where the whistle blower would signal to stop the assembly line and report something to his superiors. but I cant find any infoi to support my hunch

Interesting question. I found this, from Wordorigins:
Whistleblower, a word for an employee, especially a civil servant, who publicly denounces illegal or wasteful practices, is relatively recent. The phrase blow the whistle" dates to 1934 and is a metaphor for a sports official calling a foul. The term whistleblower, itself, only dates to 1970.
Maybe that's close enough? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Vanunu

The objection to the deletion of Vanunu appears invalid. He did expose corruption, since Israel is accepting American aid under false pretences, i.e. that it does not have nuclear weapons. He also revealed that the Israeli nuclear plant would release nuclear materials into the atmosphere when the wind was blowing towards Jordan, surely misconduct and probably illegal. He revealed this to the highest authority of all, world opinion. PatGallacher 01:24, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Could you possibly source any of these claims? Particularly that Israel is accepting AID under the "pretences" that it does not have nuclear weapons, or that the nuclear plant is in any way illegal? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Without going into the question of the legality or otherwise of the nuclear facility at Dimona, I would agree that there is a case of linking the whistleblower article to the article on Mordechai Vanunu. As the case of Mordechai Vanunu is dealt with in detail elsewhere on Wikipedia, a mere link would suffice. I think the link should remain so that people can compare and contrast Vanunu's case with those of others who are generally regarded as whistleblowers. Michael Glass 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

All this clear POV. HOWEVER, if you only want people to read about Vanunu in the context of whistleblowing through an external link, rather than confusing readers about whistleblowers with highly contested examples, I am going to go along with your compromise. Education has not hurt anyone, nor reasonable compromises on Wikipedia rules. gidonb 13:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tripp

I find it curious that Vanunu is out and Tripp is in. For example - the ratio of google references to Vanunu+whistleblower as opposed to Tripp+whistleblower is 4 to 1. Of course, if the Vanunu case had been more widely discussed than the Linda Tripp case this could just be an artefact, but the reverse seems to be the case. One may certainly take the point of view that both are widely viewed as whistleblowers, and I would imagine that both claims would also be hotly disputed by substantial bodies of opinion. I have no view on the desirability of including controversial examples, but at the moment the treatment is inconsistent. Abu Amaal 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

== Freedom category = "Freedom" from this page. The definition of whistleblower clearly can include cases where the whistleblower's action may either harm or help freedom; therefore the concept is freedom-neutral and it makes no sense as an article under the freedom category. For example, if the law is a fugitive slave law, and a group is acting as an underground railroad, then someone who does whistleblowing in that group to bring in the authorities is clearly harming freedom. Or the notion of health regulations, right in the whistleblower definition; the whole notion of a health regulation is contrary to freedom. On the other hand, whistleblowing can also help freedom in the case of reducing corruption. PJB

[edit] Stephen Heller

The whistleblower in the California Diebold case (they settled for $2.6 million) was charged with three felonies as a result and is now going to trial. He seems on his way to becoming a famous whistleblower as a result. Add? [[1]] Abu Amaal 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mordechai Vanunu Revisited

It seems odd that the name of Mordechai Vanunu has been exclused from the list of famous Whistleblowers. He is referred to as a whistleblower in an article in Harretz, an Israeli newspaper. <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=%20417663&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y> If Haaretz can call him a whistleblower, why not Wikipedia? Michael Glass 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Israeli newspapers need to sell copies just like other papers worldwide, so from time to time they will insert juicy titles (notice that the journalist never used the concept). There is no reason why Israeli newspapers should in this respect be different from other newspapers in other democratic countries. Yet the perception that Vanunu is a whistleblower is contested. There is agreement that he supplied very interesting information to the press - as many journalistic sources do - the disagreement is whether he exposed any misconduct. Unlike lets say the exposure of corruption and other crimes, the believe whether he did is usually related to one's political positions. Please dive into the former discussions here and elsewhere and you will see different personal opinions on this subject. Regards, gidonb 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to discuss the case of Mordechai Vanunu in this article, not as a means of saying that he fits or does not fit the definition of a whistleblower, but as a way of illustrating the dificulties inherent in defining the term. It would also be good to say that the same person can be seen as both a whistleblower and a traitor, depending on the point of view of the observer. Using the case of Mordechai Vanunu in this way would be a challenge, because he is such a controversial figure for supporters of Israel. However, I think that the result, if successful, would be well worth the effort. Michael Glass 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Whistleblowers, by definition, expose illegal activity. Israel's nuclear program is not illegal in any sense of the word, even if they have been developing nuclear weapons as Vanunu alleges. See also previous Talk: page archives. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Vanunu has been called a whistle blower by reliable sources. "It isn't up to us to interpret what has been stated by reliable sources". --Uncle Bungle 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's disputed, and he doesn't match the definition, and the article doesn't need it. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many links: The New York Times [2], NPR (The Connection) [3], The Washington POst [4], reuters[5], the Associated press [6], CNN [7], the New Republic [8], Haaretz [9], the Jerusalem Post [10], the Guardian [11], The Whistleblower of Dimona: Israel, Vanunu, and the Bomb [12], Whistleblowers and the Bomb - New Edition: Vanunu, Israel and Nuclear Secrecy [13]. I mean who disputes it.--76.24.22.176 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay, sorry for the vandal remark, I misunderstood your comments on edit 12424836. As far as being disputed, we've got numerous reliable sources calling him a whistle blower. It may be disputed, but that isn't up to us. All we do is report what has been said by reliable sources. I hope that by adding 'by some' readers will understand that it is occasionally disputed, and noting the clandestine nature of Israel's WMD program helps to qualify. (That the program is carried out in secret I think is without dispute). Thanks, Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add a link to mobbing.ca

I have added a reference to "mobbing" at the end of "Reactions to whistleblowing" as it is often the response from organizations to whistleblowers.

I would like to add an external link to mobbing.ca, a website which provides information on this phenomenon.

For your convenience here is the link you can add to "External links":

Radyx 04:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Whistleblowers?

What would qualify as a famous Whistleblower? Is it but the list of all of them that turns up on the category page, or does it have to be a household name like Ralph Nader? Achim

[edit] Following NPOV

The clumsiness of the current opening two paragraphs seem unnecessary for exposition on Whistleblowing. So I'll paste it here until such a time as it may be improved. " Wigand was a key participant in "Whistleblower Week In Washington" May 13- 19, 2007. See below and the WWW website.

Since the Bush administration has been in power it has been a hostile climate in Washington when it comes to whistleblowing. "When people call me and ask about blowing the whistle, I always tell them, 'Don't do it, because your life will be destroyed,'" says William Weaver, a professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and a senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. "You'll lose your career; you're probably going to lose your family if you have one; you're probably going to lose all your friends because they're associated through work; you'll wind up squandering your life savings on attorneys; and you'll come out the other end of this process working at McDonald's."[1] " DDB 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a split

I propose that "Famous whistleblowers" be split off into another article.Vice regent 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that proposal. I feel that a description of what a whistleblower is, is different to what whistle blowers have been. DDB 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not so convinced; this article's not huge at present, and "list of..." articles with somewhat open-ended criteria can take on a strange quality of their own, when "cut adrift" of their parent article. A large, ever-growing list of "uncontested" whistleblowers (i.e., well-sourced as such, and not redefined by large WP posses not to be) would potentially also be better placed in the category than a list article. Alai 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is allready a category for whistleblowers, but apparently being labelled a whistleblower by a reliable source isn't enough to qualify for inclusion in the category. As such, we need to maintain two lists: the category for those who meet a narrow definition, and the list here for those who meet the requirements of WP:V only. Case in point: Mordechai Vanunu. That said, I'm all for changing the heading from "Famous whistleblowers" to "List of whistleblowers". --Uncle Bungle 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a somewhat uncomfortable solution -- and I note, not one that seems in any risk of being adopted for Cat:Israeli criminals, say. Verifiablity should be the criteria for all category inclusions, though admittedly we then get into issues of what's "verified, but (verifiedly or otherwise) controverted". Certainly avoiding the "famous" would be an improvement, for all the usual reasons. Alai 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on paragraph about GSA?

There's still a paragraph referring to the GSA that seems out of place in the current article. It's cut-and-pasted from the linked-to URL, apparently a transcript of some conference in the 1980s. Would anyone object if I removed it? Xenophon Fenderson 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality

This whole article reads like an advocacy piece for whistleblower protection rather than a balanced encyclopedia article. It's also laded with weasel words: "Some believe ..." "Some say ..." which are then employed as straw men.

I am also disappointed that there is not a whisper about the issue of disgruntled employees making spurious accusations against employers. I don't see how an article on whistleblowers that omits this topic can be considered balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.87.144 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious how the above comment was not signed by the author. For me personally, when I see as many tags as this article has, it does not necessarily mean that the article is junk or great, especially when it has as many outside references as this one, but it means to me that the contents are contrary to business/government mainstream, which may also account for the many "anonymous" edits, which can be raised through Virgil: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Whistleblower --Achim (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Tags from anons ought to be removed IMO. There is nothing wrong with the "some people say" as long as the reader can find out who some people are from the citations. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One big law firm Ad Page

I think its time to do some culling. This is a popular tort and sites that index Wikipedia entries that don't use nofollow tags are basically giving them free advertising. If someone needs a whistleblower attorney they can click on one of the many paid ads they will find in Google or Yahoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston2austin (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] literature for improving the article

Hey guys. I'm not sure how much time I will have to contribute to the article myself, but I think there is huge potential for improvement. For example, there are many resources given, but they are not used as references for the many controversial statements and opinions given. I like to provide some further references that contain scientific essays and studies about whistle-blowing: I myself have read the article "Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing" by Janet P. Near and Marcia P. Miceli, Journal of Business Ethics 4, 1985, 1-16. It's an excellent, well-balanced, and one of the earliest scientific papers on whistle-blowing. It's not open source but I can email it to anyone who's interested. It also contains many references. Then there is this interesting website here [14] (unfortuntately only in German) that includes some of the more recent literature available (up to 2005), one of which is an actual study which seems to confirm much of the theory described by Near and Miceli in 1985: Keenan, J.P.: Blowing the Whistle on Less Serious Forms of Fraud: A Study of Executives and Managers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 12, 2000, 199-217. I haven't read it myself so far, but it looks promising and I can send it to anyone interested. My point is that a lot of serious research has been done on this topic, and I don't see how this is reflected by the article in its current form, especially in the first sections. I hope it helps, and hopefully I'll also find some more time to contribute myself. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)