Talk:List of whistleblowers

Business List‑class Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law List‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

alphabetical vs. choronoligical order

It's strange that this page is in alphabetical order -- alphabetical order is so 20th century (used to make it easier to find things you're looking for on paper -- we use full-text search now). Anyhow, I think this page would look really cool if it were presented in chronological order by the date of the whistle-blowing (presented, where necessary, as a date range).

I'll also point out that if we're keeping multiple whistle-blowers related to one scandal on the same line, then alphabetical order is particularly ineffective and chronological order becomes particularly effective.

Thoughts?

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of ordering the names chronologically rather than alphabetically. In addition to keeping people involved in the same incident together, this makes it easy to associate problems with certain presidential administrations.
This list is very short. I could add over a hundred names right now, but I'm not sure that's a good idea. Perhaps there should be categories like industry, political, religious. I just throw that out for discussion.

ChrisWinter (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange?

Where is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.131.167 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a whistleblower, he is a publisher of leaks. Guy (Help!) 01:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He deserves spot on here just as much as anyone else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Varietylights (talk • contribs)

You are correct he is a publisher of leaks but non the less Assange is a whistleblower as much as that may Smack of a bit of a twist he is a whistleblower. In the whistleblower USC 313729-3733 law you can be a secondary source and still be called a Qui Tam Plantiff but what to do with him would be more the question. I believe that Wikileaks and Assange as much as some folks may not like him or agree with his tactics is an important player in getting out the real truth and I believe that puts him in the Whistleblower category. I Wikipedia is truly a publisher of significant historical data Then I believe that Wiki Leaks and Assange deserves to have a spot at the table in as far as original source or secondary source is concerned either way their putting out verifiable information and off course no bigger or no smaller then another site "No Grandstanding" and non-promotional would seem appropriate. I realize that this is a sensitive subject matter but you have to look at the truth of it and agree that he is a publisher of fact and not the original source but a channel for the original source. My thumb is up !Qui Tam Relator 07:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

In sum, a whistleblower works for the entity (be it a company or government), and has specialist inside knowledge, and then risks his/her job by whistleblowing. Assange is an outsider. Some of his material comes from whistleblowers.Red Hurley (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so, was he added or not? (did not check the entire list, dropped by here for an other reason) - because if no, I also vote for no. WL is a publishing platform, of course a journalistic medium. JAs role is that of the editor. This is something ab-so-lu-te-ly different than whistleblowing, even though the current authorities in the USA seem, according to the news arriving in Europe, not like to accept that. (It is not always easy to accept what one does not like, but here the facts are quite clear.) --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format of this list

This list seems very difficult to navigate; I think it needs a format change. WP:BOLDly adding a table based on List of Nobel laureates in Physics. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. The table format is great improvement. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needed additions

Roger Boisjoly should be on this list. Also AEC scientists John Gofman and Arthur Tamplin, Engineer Charles Pettis, and former GM employee Ed Gregory (to name a few.) ChrisWinter (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Manning and Ryszard Jerzy Kukliński

I propose to add Bradley Manning and Ryszard Kuklinski to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.192.156 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to suggest adding Bradley Manning, he could be paired with Julian Assange.BenW (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take from the comments Bradley Manning was in Jan 2012 not on the list? wow. Is he now? (not checked yet, dropped by here for an other reason). I hope this was done already. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Webb

How can a journalist be a whistleblower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureliusweb (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Smedley Butler?

He revealed a conspiracy to overthrow the government. --Goldenbirdman (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gustl Mollath

Could somebody technically more experienced than me add Gustl Mollath to the list? No idea how to use the form yet. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria?

OPTION B

Consensus for Option B - "any person may be listed, provided there is an article [here on Wikipedia] about the whistleblowing event. Optionally, their name can be piped to the event to provide consistent blue links." (non-admin closure)

Very little participation apart from the nominator
No support for Options A or C
No alternatives proposed
No extended discussion
Consensus for Option B shows support for a reasonable compromise between the "rampant inclusion" of persons linked to non-notable events and the whistleblowing only by those persons satisfying WP:BASIC

I've qualified the description above by adding here on Wikipedia, because that's my interpretation of the proposal. If this is incorrect, please feel free to revert this close and offer clarification in order for another closer to deal with this. Thanks for contributing. -- Trevj (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For a list to be useful, some limits need to be placed on its contents. At the moment, it does not appear that any discussion has been had about the inclusion criteria for this list. I propose three options, and would like to hear what other people think. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option A - any person may be listed, provided there is at least one reliable source.
Option B - any person may be listed, provided there is an article about the whistleblowing event. Optionally, their name can be piped to the event to provide consistent blue links.
Option C - a person should be listed only if they are themselves notable.

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Option B - This provides balance between rampant inclusion, and excluding whistleblowers who are not individually notable but are associated with notable events. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Option B - If there isn't an article about the persons whislteblowing then to me it seems unlikely that they would be notable unless it was for something else. Opt C would seem to exclude those that are notable because of the whisleblowing. --wintonian ^talk 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confused about List Of Whistleblowers ?

Greetings Wikipedia List Of Whistleblowers Talk Page Will the List of Whistleblowers be in a yearly format, when the event happened? Seems that this would be the most appropriate way and easily found when the whistleblowing happened the date when it occurred. 166.137.208.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! The table is sortable, and defaults to chronological order. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree at the moment I seem to have 2002 - 1966 - 1977 at the beginning and 2009 (big gap here with no dates) 2005 - 2006 -2009 - 2006 - 2011 - 2012 at the other end, I haven't touched any of the sorting options. --wintonian ^talk 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Whistleblowers

Any significant event of any kind usually has many verifiable sources. To avoid any confusion of the reliability of the claim there should be maybe more then a single source, usually there are always two side to every story. Qui Tam Relator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]