Talk:David M. Walker (politician)
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Business / Accounting||(Rated Start-class)|
On a new line he has some real big change ideas and along with Greenspan will probably turn some heads. I'm thinking about what he said and can appreciate the difficulty in the Senate and Congress. Most of what he said everybody knew but was just afraid to say it which would mean somebody knew. You have to make it a Plausible Deniability thing (you know The Independence Day movie, so who knows? But now we know for sure we are in trouble. Glad to see someone, at least, got a plan. World he deserves a medal for that C-span talk at the Congressional hearing talks. Bmazak (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that a talk page is meant for discussion of editorial changes to the article --- not for general comments about the subject of the article. By that standard, the previous comment does not belong on this talk page. Furthermore, I personally believe that all parts of Wikipedia, including comments on a talk page, should be coherent and grammatical. The previous comment also does not conform to that standard. In fact, all but the second sentence are completely ungrammatical. The same applies to a lesser extent to the following comment. Can we have some quality control?
On the external link for the 60 minute, it has comment at the end of its title " -scary!". While I do not disagree with this statement about the video, it is unnecessary. Also is there a non-Ron Pauled version of that video? Again, good information from 60 minutes with a Ron Paul wrapper. Nothing against Ron Paul, just trying to make this a little bit more non-partisan. Bcomnes 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the section on GAO's vote for a union and salary issues should be in the "Government Accountability Office" article and not the "David M. Walker" article. It would seem more relevant there. --Squash1978 15:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The section related to GAO employees seems to be biased towards one point of view. Specifically, statements such as, "Mr. Walker's tenure as Comptroller General has become fraught with conflict..." and "...culminating in a historic vote..." are opinion and lack fairness of tone. Additionally, the section appears biased because it places undue weight on GAO management's salary actions and only provides one point of view to what appears to be a fairly contentious issue. --Squash1978 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a factual statement that Mr. Walker's tenure has become "fraught with conflict" with employees. It is that conflict that led GAO analysts to approve establishing a union, for the first time in GAO's 86-year history. That fact is also why it is "historic." When something major occurs at a government agency--in this case the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress--for the first time in almost a century, that qualifies as "historic." It is not biassed to make that statement. Further, "fraught with conflict" accurately sums up the situation of the past several yaers. As for placing undue weight on GAO's management's salary actions, that is precisely one of the single most important reasons GAO analysts approved a union. Some 1,800 GAO analysts were denied the same COLAs as all other 2+ milllion federal employees in both Jan. 2006 and Jan. 2007; several hundred GAO analysts were denied COLAs entirely. It is not clear on what basis the critic above claims that undue weight has been placed on these actions. Finally, the critic appears to cede the case when he/she states that these were a "contentious issue"; that pretty much sums it up. Fraught with conflict. See May 22 US House of Representatives Subcommitte on Federal Personnel hearing for statements by members of the House on questionable GAO management practices. Due to potential retaliation by GAO management, this commentary will not be signed. Wikipedia should recognize the potential for such retaliation by retributive management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melson3 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I still see a number of problems with the section in question. Above all else, this section needs to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for Biographies of living persons (BLP) and for a Neutral point of view (NPOV). BLP specifically states that "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." The section in question is written in a critical tone and contains information that is irrelevant to David Walker's biography. This section seems to be written from the point of view of someone who voted to form a union at GAO. However, the article states that 1/3 of GAO employees voted against forming a union, which indicates that another relevant point of view exits and needs to be presented in order to ensure a fair tone. Please refer to the NPOV section on "Fairness of Tone", which states among other things that, "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." Furthermore, in my opinion the only information that is directly relevant to David Walker's biography is the fact that GAO employees voted to form a union during his tenure as Comptroller General of the United States. I suggest that the the entire section be replaced with the following:
During Mr. Walker's tenure as Comptroller General, GAO employees voted (897-445) on September 19, 2007 to establish a union of GAO analysts. The union is affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), which is a member of the AFL-CIO.
This removes any bias or opinion and just leaves facts. The rest of the information related to the GAO union belongs in the GAO article and should be deleted from this biography. However, I do not believe that the information about the GAO union is written from a NPOV. It needs to be cleaned up before it is added to another article. --Squash1978 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we get rid of the duplicate entry of the 60 minutes interview? It is shown once on Youtube and again on MyspaceTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick brade (talk • contribs) 08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
He is married to the former Mary Ethredge.
shouldn't this be here?
Here is the website URL for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation www.pgpf.org Here is the Wikipedia page for the foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_G._Peterson_Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)