Talk:David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Business: Accounting 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content

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)[reply]

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?

Dagme (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Neutrality

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Duplicate Video

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)[reply]

He is married to the former Mary Ethredge.

What does that mean? Kingturtle (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't this be here?

http://www.youtube.com/user/IOUSAtheMovie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmcuker (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 99.241.114.128 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Walker (former U.S. Comptroller General) to David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General)

The former qualifier is unnecessary. It is absurd to rename articles in this way. For example, the other David M. Walker, David M. Walker (astronaut), isn't found at David M. Walker (former astronaut); John Smith (Chancellor of the Exchequer) isn't found at John Smith (former Chancellor of the Exchequer); and so on. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article was created at David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General). It was moved to David M. Walker (CPA) in April 2008 on grounds that he is "no longer Comptroller General" and then to current title in October, but the word "former" is unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not David M. Walker (Comptroller General)? Is there a reason to include the country? As far as I know, there are no other Comptroller Generals by that name. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. You're right, the "U.S." is no more necessary than the "former" for disambiguation. Station1 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or to continue making things simpler: David Walker (accountant) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although simpler, he is notable as Comptroller General, not as an accountant, so readers are more likely to recognize what they're searching for with his office as qualifier. And he is apparently often referred to using his middle initial.[1][2] Station1 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. 'U.S.' doesn't, strictly speaking, have to be in the name, but it might be helpful to include it. I'm indifferent either way on that, but 'former' should definitely be removed - we don't call people 'former x' in titles. Robofish (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David M. Walker (U.S. Comptroller General). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223151027/http://www.financialsense.com/Market/allison/2007/1015.html to http://www.financialsense.com/Market/allison/2007/1015.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]