Talk:2014 Veterans Health Administration controversy

Name change from Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014 to Veterans Health Administration controversy of 2014

The name of this article should reflect what it really is, a controversy, not a scandal. It's clear that the right wing is considering it a scandal because they just hate a black man in the white house, not to mention they were racist against an Asian-American when he ran the VA. It's just another phony scandal the right-wing made up because they hate the black president so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B011:2CF1:225:FF:FE4F:3B8E (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a few responses to that.

• So far as I have seen, there is nothing in reliable sources that call this situation a "controversy", but I have seen two of them say something like "growing public outrage".
• None of the reliable sources that I have seen quote any racist comments.
• There is nothing "controversial" about this situation that the reliable sources have mentioned. According to the sources, there are allegations of falsifying data, delaying care to those who are legally entitled to get it, and various other failings. This isn't like Benghazi where there are starkly different interpretations of where fault should be placed.
• I have taken pains in this article to maintain a neutral point of view that is consistent with reliable sources. Personally, my impression is that Shinseki is an honorable person who had big problems happening underneath him that he didn't know about, and the only blame that can be placed on him might be that he was too trusting, which is what he has said in the quote in the article from a reliable source. Furthermore, the reliable sources indicate that legislation and investigations into this situation have bipartisan support and race is not part of the picture.
• I should also point out that the United States Department of Justice, which seems likely to conduct a criminal investigation of this situation with the support of Congress, is led by Attorney General Eric Holder who happens to be African-American. If anti-minority racism was a motivation for politicians' interest in the misconduct at the Veterans Health Administration then I doubt the politicians would support the proposal that Holder's agency should have such a significant role.
• So for all the reasons above, "scandal" is an appropriate word choice and "controversy" is not, at least not at this time. As the situation develops, if there is a controversy that is so significant that it overshadows the significant bipartisan agreements to date, we can re-think about how to title the article. --Pine^✉ 07:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Pine on this issue. The anger is shared amongst the vast majority of political groups, no racist intentions exist, and this was a result of mismanagement. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your nutty post doesn't even deserve a reply.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Potentially useful source

Information in this source could potentially be used here. Just a suggestion. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Philpill691: thanks, I have added information from that source and others. --Pine^✉ 08:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peaceray (talk · contribs) 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article qualifies as a Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   I think that this article does a great job in describing the scandal in layman's terms. Much of the government source material was generated by wiktionary:policy wonk's, & this article summarized those works well.
   
   To check for copyvios, I ran it through User:CorenSearchBot/manual. The result was that Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, as of 05:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC), did not appear to be a copyright violation.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   It is well-cited & uses over seven dozen sources without over-citation. During the course of my review, I was bold in assuring improving the consistency of the citations by putting them in citation formats, adding parameters, & the like. There are no broken links at this time.

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   Links to a variety of news & government (executive & legislative) sources & at least one NGO source.

   C. No original research:

   Everything is drawn from the sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are five images from Commons. Three are in the Public Domain; the remaining two are CC BY-SA 3.0.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done!

Peaceray (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Peaceray! --Pine^✉ 07:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whistleblower retaliation progress

Some whistleblowers are getting restitution for the retaliation they got in the past, according to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VETERANS_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP - Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner congratulated the VA on correcting a couple dozen cases, the article said, while presently investigating 120 cases. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)