Talk:Whistleblowing/Archive 1

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)

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? [] Abu Amaal 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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":
 * mobbing.ca (Mobbing resources in Canada)

Radyx 04:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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.  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 , NPR (The Connection), The Washington POst , reuters, the Associated press , CNN , the New Republic , Haaretz , the Jerusalem Post , the Guardian , The Whistleblower of Dimona: Israel, Vanunu, and the Bomb , Whistleblowers and the Bomb - New Edition: Vanunu, Israel and Nuclear Secrecy. 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)

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." "

DDB 12:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (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)

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)

Wouldn't matter if the article was signed or not. GSA has failed miserably in any whistleblower protection capacity since it's inception. The only GSA article you will read regarding them supporting a whistleblower is "press release" for funding purposes. I dealt with them as a whistleblower and when helping other whisleblowers. They are not the 'cavalry.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.1.149 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FLRA
IF a union member or at a place with no union then use FLRA (Federal Relations Authority) to help- they are easy wo work with and very helpful. USSC-NASA IG 209.192.1.149 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MSPB
MSPB (Merit system Protection Board)- an extension of management. 209.192.1.149 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OSC
(Office of Special Council)

Won't do anything directly to help you or to save your job. The laws are too weakly enforced by judges and the staff is small. What OSC will do is write a "request for report" to your agency legal department and IG (inspector general) that must be answered within a few days then OSC transmits this to your district's congressional folks. Many times this seems almost self-defeating but it isn't. OSC also must make reports that are publicly reported. 209.192.1.149 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Need citation
"The HOPE Scholarship in Georgia is the only incentive to report corporate, government, or religious crimes. This scholarship provides four years of free tuition to a tech school or University in Georgia for children of whistleblowers or those researching corporate crime." I have looked all over numerous websites for the HOPE Scholarship and there is no mention of this incentive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.147.38 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whistleblower
Been there, done that. Reported the exec director for channeling money where it was not supposed to go taking money for things that she did not do, and keeping money from the needs of the elderly. Needless to say, although three of us came forward and tried to stop her, we were all three terminated because the board knew they had been negligent in their fiduciary dutiesSandlot29 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

comment on literature for improving the article
Hey folks. I see I'm responding to a comment written two years ago, so I'll keep my comments short.

I agree that there's room for improvement. I've read quite a few of Near & Micelli, and as a lawyer who's represented whistleblowers for many moons, I agree that they're trying to be objective. But before running off in that direction, they're only part of four bodies of literature: business professors like Near and Micelli, law professors, social scientists, and the judges who write opinions. So my first thought is, don't we need a literature search? Peter.van.Schaick (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Peter.van.Schaick

merge ORB
These articles overlap a lot. The Organizational retaliatory behavior article has some serious issues as well. Gigs (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Resounding No. They are two different topics and should have separate articles. MaxPont (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. ORB is more relevant to Workplace revenge anyway.--Penbat (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable Whistleblower William Marcus
http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108

William Marcus was the first EPA employee to obtain protection under the environmental whistleblower statutes.(Zxoxm (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Why is there a link to a movie on this page?
This seems to be promoting a movie more then it pertains to the actual list of major whistleblowers. It seems that if your going to have a site with this name that you would want to make a reference at the top of the page of some of what Wikipedia already has as examples and not a movie. I believe that if your going to have a reference point to use what Wikipedia already has in their site regarding this subject matter. Thank you for your ear and patience.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of major whistleblowers
You may want to think about using the list of major whistleblowewer as a reference point at the top of the page so you can actually see real people who blew the whistle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.183.182 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Who put a movie link to an external site outside of Wikipedia ?
Wikipedia has plenty of reference material for this site to stay internal ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.183.182 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagged POV and Cleanup Required
I just flagged this article as lacking neutrality and requiring cleanup, as it is pretty biased and is fairly low quality compared to article standards. The entire article makes the assumption that Whistleblowers are good people, who are morally just. This is not always the case, in fact, most of the time Whistleblowers can be viewed as either attention-seeking or heroes. This article needs to be done from a more neutral perspective. The quality of the writing itself is also pretty below par, not in terms of technical quality, but it lacks an organized feel, and could perhaps be expanded as well. LiamSP (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The charge of 'attention-seeking or heroes' is even more POV. I don't accept that LiamSP has adequately made the case.  I suspect that he may be referring to the Wikileaks of low-grade US information, which the US didn't like but has been beneficial to the rest of the world, notably north Africa.  Accordingly, I am reverting to the status quo ante until there has been a more thorough discussion and a broad consensus reached. --Red King (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Much agreed. Whistleblowing is undeniably 'always' a good thing. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Whistle image at top of page
Is that a joke? The image appears to be entirely absent from the site it is footnoted to come from. I plan to remove it in a couple of days, if there's no dissent. --Dweller (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to wait a couple of days. Good observation! VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Work group
Do we have a project group/work group working on this? I mean, I think this is rapidly becoming the major issue of our time in terms of 1st Amendment, privacy, etc. I really don't know what I'm taking about when it comes to work groups, but I think I've seen some on movies, boxing, etc.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Qui Tam Relators
Where is any information about Qui Tam Relators and law that allowed Qui Tam Whistleblowers to come forward and help different government agencies and cooperated with government agencies to recover monies by assisting in an investigation against various companies or individuals to uncover fraud against the American Taxpayers under statute 31 USC 3729-3733 enacted on March 2, 1863 and amended on Oct. 27, 1986 ? Qui Tam Relator 02:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

Incomplete definition?
The introduction seems to lack one important fact that distinguishes the whistleblower from a journalist: The whistleblower is somehow connected to the organization he discloses confidential information about. He is insider of (e.g. employed by) this organization and gets his knowledge in line of duty and is legally or ethically compelled not to disclose it. (By Non-disclosure agreement, by being sworn in or just by some duty of loyalty to the organization). --Pyrometer (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think its a Capitol idea to add Qui Tam Relators stories to the list under 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 "Mr. Lincoln's Law."
In 1988 Roland Gibeault won the first Qui Tam Case against Genisco Technology Corp. and T.I. with the passing of the amendments on oct. 27, 1986 to the original March 2, 1863 enactment of The False Claims Act. Gibeaults case won even before John Gravitts case which actually changed the False Claims Act Law but Gravitts case did not win until a year later in1989 against General Electric because of all the G.E. legal maneuvering against the case. Qui Tam Relator 05:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

US Centric
This page comes across very US centric to me, referring to US laws regularly. Those are certainly relevant, but the concept of whistleblowers exist in all countries and as far as I know it's older than US. -- Lejman (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Possible problems with early US whistleblower coverage
You may be interested in these Possible problems with early US whistleblower coverage. Some of the possible problems are relevant to this article.TuxLibNit (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Whistleblowing
Why not rename article as "Whistleblowing" the concept rather than the individual. Makes sense to me.--Penbat (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It makes more sense from an encyclopedic standpoint. Unfortunately, the entire article is phrased around the noun rather than the verb. It will require a substantial re-write to change this. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article of whistleblowers gives a good thesis and explanation of what types of whistleblowers are there. Internal, external and third party whistleblowers are explain in the article. The common reactions of whistleblowers are explain in such cases of qui tam cases in which entitled them to some reward for bringing the abuses to the forefront. The whistleblower article explores the psychological impact of whistleblowing of an individual to themselves and the institutional process which expose the wrong doing. The whistleblower also points out there are protections for whistleblower outside the United States among the Western nations. The article may need some examples of whistleblowers such as Manning or others who may contribute to government abuses. Who is consider a whistleblowers in the United States and who is not consider a whistleblower. AbePOSI2015 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Walmart Connection to DHS and FEMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5shC1sDQV1A — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Under representation of consequences
This article does talk a decent amount about both perspectives of whistleblowers but not enough regarding the consequences of a "traitor". The article goes on about the different legal protections of different countries but does not go into detail about when you are not protected. Down below are links that should be added to keep the article even more neutral. I also feel it is necessary to talk about the difference between corporate and federal whistleblowers because they both have different types of consequences also.

whistleblowers corporate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewvalian (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Edward Snowden?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Snowden A discussion on Snowden's status is a Whistleblower is nearing consensus and I expect will result in declaring him to be one in the article about him. I would also expect the event to be considered one of the "world-class" whistleblowers and believe that it would be appropriate to include him and list him in this article. What are the thoughts of others?Jonny Quick (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, It would be helpful to include reference to egregious whistle-blowers in the article. I expected to find Snowden and Manning cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.42.77 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article isn't really a list of people identified as whistleblowers; that exists already at List of whistleblowers and Snowden is included on that list. To me, singling him out here smacks of recentism. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, is Snowden a whistleblower? Do national security employees have whistleblower protections? Morally he is a whistleblower, but is that true legally. I was in the military, in military intelligence in fact, same MOS (I think) as Manning (this the interest) and I don't believe that under the UCMJ there are any whistleblower protections as First Amendment rights are, or were when I was in, nil. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would benefit the article greatly if we found a list of the most cited whistleblowers, and perhaps named the top 3. I tried to use Google ngram for this, to no avail. Does anyone have suggestions on how to find the most cited whistleblowers? In my research, I've found that many peer-reviewed papers on whistleblowing evaluate Chelsea Manning, along with Edward Snowden, as a controversial whistleblower. I propose adding the following description of Chelsea Manning's story to the "Public sector whistleblowing" section (1.6): "In 2013, Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking sensitive military documents to WikiLeaks.[11] The same year, Snowden was convicted for violating the same act (the Espionage Act) for blowing the whistle on the NSA.[12]"

11. Madar, Chase. "THE TRIALS OF BRADLEY MANNING". Nation. 8/19/2013, Vol. 297 Issue 7/8, p12-17. 5p.

12. Bamford, James. "Watch Thy Neighbor". Foreign Policy. Mar/Apr2016, Issue 217, p76-79. 3p.

Atticusbixby (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge "Legal protection" and "Consequences of Whistleblowing"
The "Legal protection" section (2) provides little information, while the "Consequences of Whistleblowing" section (3) provides an in-depth description of the legality of whistleblowing by country, I propose that the "Legal protection" section be merged with the introduction of the "Consequences of Whistleblowing" section. As the "Consequences of Whistleblowing" section discusses both legal protection and repercussions, I propose this section be renamed to "Legality of Whistleblowing."

Atticusbixby (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Consequences of Whistleblowing: Add Dodd-Frank Act
I propose adding the following paragraph to the "United States" section of "Consequences of Whistleblowing" (3.9):

"Section 922 of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in the United States incentivizes and protects whistleblowers.[21] By Dodd-Frank, the SEC financially rewards whistleblowers for providing information that results in sanctions of at least $1M.[5][6] Additionally, Dodd-Frank offers job security to whistleblowers by illegalizing termination or discrimination due to whistleblowing.[5][7][8] The whistleblower provision has proven successful: after the enactment of Dodd-Frank, the SEC charged KBR (company) with violating the whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 by having employees sign confidentiality agreements that threatened repercussions for discussing internal matters with outside parties.[9][10] As of his recent election, President-Elect Trump has announced plans to dismantle Dodd-Frank, which may negatively impact whistleblower protection in the United States.[22]

5. "Dodd-Frank Act Rulemaking: Whistleblower Program". www.sec.gov. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

6. Barthle II, Patrick A. "Whistling Rogues: A Comparative Analysis of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Bounty Program". Washington & Lee Law Review. Spring2012, Vol. 69 Issue 2, p1201-1257. 57p.

7. AGARWAL, TAPAS. "ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTION FOR INTERNAL WHISTLEBLOWERS UNDER DODD-F RANK FOLLOWING THE FIFTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN ASADI". St. Mary's Law Journal. Vol. 46 Issue 3, p421-431. 11p.

8. Leifer, Samuel C. "PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS IN THE DODD--FRANK ACT". Michigan Law Review. Oct2014, Vol. 113 Issue 1, p121-149. 29p.

9. "SEC.gov | SEC: Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements". www.sec.gov. Retrieved 2016-10-27.

10. Hastings, Kathryn. "Keeping Whistleblowers Quiet: Addressing Employer Agreements To Discourage Whistleblowing". Tulane Law Review. Dec2015, Vol. 90 Issue 2, p495-527. 33p.

21. "Dodd-Frank Section 922" (PDF). sec.gov.

22. "Trump Team Promises To 'Dismantle' Dodd-Frank Bank Regulations". NPR.org. Retrieved 2016-11-11.

Atticusbixby (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Emphasize whistleblowers' use of Tor
Proposal: add the following statement to the "Modern methods used for whistleblower protection" section (5): "Tor has undergone a number of large security updates to protect the identities of potential whistleblowers who may wish to anonymously leak information.[13]"

13. "Security upgrade for 'anonymity network'". New Scientist. 8/11/2007, Vol. 195 Issue 2616, p23-23. 1p.

Atticusbixby (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove bias in discussions of ethics
In the lead section, the following statement is overtly biased, with no supporting evidence nor citations: "Whistleblowing is truly an entirely ethical decision, and action. In the case of many like Edward Snowden, whistleblowing is seen as the last ethically right thing to do." I propose rewriting the statement as follows: "Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. Leading arguments in the ideological camp that whistleblowing is ethical maintain that whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience, and aims to protect the public from government wrongdoing.[1][2] In the opposite camp, some see whistleblowing as unethical for breaching confidentiality, especially in industries that handle sensitive client or patient information.[3]"

The following statement Ethics section (1.10) is biased in favor of Snowden, falsely confines the discussion to America, and again, has no supporting evidence nor citations: "In the case of Edward Snowden many Americans perceive his actions to be ethically and morally right." I propose rewriting the statement as: "The ethics of Edward Snowden's actions have been widely discussed and debated in news media and academia worldwide.[4]"

1. Delmas, Candice. "The Ethics of Government Whistleblowing". Social Theory & Practice. Jan2015, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p77-105. 29p.

2. Alford, C. Fred. "Whistleblowers and the Narrative of Ethics". Journal of Social Philosophy. Winter2001, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p402-418. 17p.

3.  Firtko, Angela; Jackson, Debra. "DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? NURSING AND THE DILEMMA OF WHISTLEBLOWING". Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. Sep/Nov2005, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p51-56. 6p.

4. Friedman, Mark. "EDWARD SNOWDEN: HERO OR TRAITOR? CONSIDERING THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADIAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND WHISTLEBLOWER LAW".

Atticusbixby (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Statistics to Psychological Impact
In this paragraph in the Common Reactions section, "Whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, but in many cases punishment has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a widespread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing."

add the following statement: "A 2009 study found that up to 38% of whistleblowers experienced professional retaliation in some form, including wrongful termination.[23]"

23. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., &  Dworkin, T. M.  (2009). Journal of Business Ethics.

Atticusbixby (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Add section 1.11: Motivations for Whistleblowing
Create a new section to describe whistleblowers' motivations:

"Many whistleblowers have stated that they were motivated to take action to put an end to unethical practices, after witnessing injustices in their businesses or organizations.[24] A 2009 study found that whistleblowers are often motivated to take action when they notice a sharp decline in ethical practices, as opposed to a gradual worsening.[26] There are generally two metrics by which whistleblowers determine if a practice is unethical. The first metric involves a violation of the organization's bylaws or written ethical policies. These violations allow individuals to concretize and rationalize blowing the whistle.[28] On the other hand, "value-driven" whistleblowers are influenced by their personal codes of ethics. In these cases, whistleblowers have been criticized for being driven by personal biases.[27]

In addition to ethics, social and organizational pressure are a motivating forces. A 2012 study identified that individuals are more likely to blow the whistle when several others know about the wrongdoing, because they would otherwise fear consequences for keeping silent.[25] In cases when one person is causing an injustice, the individual who notices the injustice may file a formal report, rather than confronting the wrongdoer, because confrontation would be more emotionally and psychologically stressful.[31][32][33] Furthermore, individuals may be motivated to report unethical behavior when they believe their organizations will support them.[29] Professionals in management roles may feel responsibility to blow the whistle in order to uphold the values and rules of their organizations.[30]"

24. Rice, Alexander J. "Using Scholarship on Whistleblowing to Inform Peer Ethics Reporting". Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. Aug2015, Vol. 46 Issue 4: p298–305. 8p.

25. Robinson, S. N., Robertson, J. C., &  Curtis, M. B. "The Effects of Contextual and Wrongdoing Attributes on Organizational Employees' Whistleblowing Intentions Following Fraud." Journal of Business Ethics. 2012.

26. Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others' unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 708-719.

27. Keenan, J. P., & McLain, D. A. (1992). Whistleblowing: A conceptualization and model. In Wall, J. L., & Jauch, K. R. (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, August 10–12, Las Vegas, NV, 350–352.

28. Kaptein, Muel (2011). "From Inaction to External Whistleblowing: The Influence of the Ethical Culture of Organizations on Employee Responses to Observed Wrongdoing". Journal of Business Ethics. 98: 513.

29. Gundlach, Michael J.; Douglas, Scott C.; Martinko, Mark J. "The Decision to Blow the Whistle: A Social Information Processing Framework". The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan., 2003).: pp. 107–123.

30. Loyens, Kim (1997). "Why police officers and labour inspectors (do not) blow the whistle: A grid group cultural theory perspective". Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.

31. de Graaf, Gjalt (2010). "Managing Conflicting Public Values: Governing With Integrity and Effectiveness". The American Review of Public Administration.

32. King III, Granville; Hermodson, Amy. "Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: A qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior". Journal of Applied Communication Research. Vol. 28 (2000), Issue 4: 309–329.

33. Trevino, Linda Klebe; Victor, Bart. "Peer Reporting of Unethical Behavior: A Social Context Perspective". The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1992): pp. 38–64.

Atticusbixby (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Date of original US Whistleblower law?
The current article has the original whistleblower law in the 1800s, but this article talks about a 1778 law:

| Why you should care about National Whistleblower Appreciation Day

I suspect The Hill is more reliable than Answers.com. Anyone wanna weigh in, or should I just edit it? SlickVicar (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whistleblower. 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/20090504071949/http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/ to http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504071949/http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/ to http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whistleblower. 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/20150404012642/http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2F to http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203155909/http://conversations.psu.edu/episodes/eyal_press to http://conversations.psu.edu/episodes/eyal_press

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Franklin-Hutchinson paragraph
There was a substantial argument for a Citation needed on this paragraph AND elimination of the paragraph. The argument was embedded in the text, not visible in the published article; garbled for me to read but it's here, starting at 'Strike this ...'. There's a full article with plentiful citations to which the paragraph links -- the paragraph now links to the main article more clearly and with no excessive conclusions after my editing of it a few minutes ago I hope. The 'Strike' argument was that the 1773 events were 16 years before the Constitution. But they were also only two years before the first shots were fired in the Revolution and were seemingly quite integral to the approach to that fighting. I favor continued  inclusion. Swliv (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A proposed change: adding an organization to "Advocacy for whistleblower rights and protections" section
Information to be added or removed: Adding the National Whistleblower Center to the list of organizations that advocate for whistleblowers, so that the final text looks like this:

'''Advocacy for whistleblower rights and protections '''

"Many NGOs advocate for stronger and more comprehensive legal rights and protections for whistleblowers. Among them are the Government Accountability Project (GAP), Blueprint for Free Speech, Public Concern at Work (PCaW), the Open Democracy Advice Centre, and the National Whistleblower Center (NWC)."

Explanation of issue: The omission of the National Whistleblower Center from this list of organizations that advocate for and provide legal aid to whistleblowers should be remedied because of this organization's involvement in the advocacy and aid for whistleblowers. The National Whistleblower Center was integral in the enactment of National Whistleblower Appreciation Day and has hosted the event since the first celebration in 2015. Through grassroots campaigns, legal assistance, and whistleblower advocacy, the National Whistleblower Center is involved in proposing legislation to aid whistleblowers and expanding whistleblower rights. Additionally, the National Whistleblower Center Blog reports on current whistleblower news and reports, including the expanding area of wildlife poaching whistleblowing. This organization is a major presence and leader in whistleblower advocacy and should be included in this list in this article.

References supporting change: A quick look at the National Whistleblower Center's website and Wikipedia page displays the high-profile cases and legislative and research this organization deals with, but below are links to articles published recently detailing work the National Whistleblower Center has done.

An article from Time Magazine about a recent study conducted by the National Whistleblower Center

CBS News about the same May 2019 report

A Wall Street Journal article about one of the National Whistleblower Center's projects

.

I would also like to disclose that I am a paid editor— this information is included in my user page, user talk page, and in the Connected Contributor template that I used in conjunction with the Requested Edit template. Please let me know if there’s anything I need to change or any references or links I should add. Thanks! Sa 3003 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-MAY-2019
Regards, Spintendo  19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The provided references do not confirm the text within the proposal.
 * Kindly insert the quoted text from the sources which confirms the statements, by using the quote parameter of the citation template.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2019
Update the whistleblowing hotline section changes are implemented below

''' Change the Whistleblowing section from this '''
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Requested edit is purely promotional. The HBR article is already linked. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblowing Hotline
In business, whistleblowing hotlines are usually deployed as a way of mitigating risk, with the intention of providing secure, anonymous reporting for employees or third party suppliers who may otherwise be fearful of reprisals from their employer. As such, implementing a corporate whistleblowing hotline is often seen as a step towards compliance, and can also highlight an organization's stance on ethics. It is widely agreed that implementing a dedicated service for whistleblowers has a positive effect on an organizational culture.

  

A whistleblowing hotline is sometimes also referred to as an ethics hotline or  'Speak Up' hotline and is often facilitated by an outsourced service provider to encourage potential disclosers to come forward. Navex Global and Expolink are examples of global third party whistleblower services.

 

To this

Whistleblowing Hotline
In business, whistleblowing hotlines are usually deployed as a way of mitigating risk, with the intention of providing secure, anonymous reporting for employees or third party suppliers who may otherwise be fearful of reprisals from their employer. As such, implementing a corporate whistleblowing hotline is often seen as a step towards compliance, and can also highlight an organization's stance on ethics. It is widely agreed that implementing a dedicated service for whistleblowers has a positive effect on an organizational culture.

  

A whistleblowing hotline is sometimes also referred to as an ethics hotline or  'Speak Up' hotline and is often facilitated by an outsourced service provider to encourage potential disclosers to come forward.

It is beneficial for a company to have a Whistleblowing hotline because, The benefits of an external service include


 * Gives a voice to your employees, contractors, suppliers and supply chain and other stakeholders
 * Helps to create or enhance a culture of openness
 * Demonstrates that malpractice is taken seriously and dealt with at the highest level
 * Demonstrates best practice and good governance to all
 * Provides senior management with an overall temperature of the business

Navex Global and Expolink are examples of global third party whistleblower services.

 

In 2018 Harvard Business Review published findings to support the idea that whistleblowing hotlines are crucial to keeping companies healthy, stating "More whistles blown are a sign of health, not illness."

  Nedesigners (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of a communication strategy of whistleblowers section
Hello everyone, I am a college student currently enrolled in a Science Communication class. While reading over this article, I felt that it could benefit from a section that includes the ways in which whistleblowers communicate their messages to the general public. I believe this information is important because throughout history, there have been advances in technology and different media sources that allow for communication among people to be faster, more accessible, and shared among one another. Considering whistleblowers are literal modes of disseminating information, the inclusion of how they choose to report their stories and experiences should be shared as well as an analysis of the types of audiences they are trying to convey it to. This is only a suggestion, but I think it would make the article more direct and concise rather than the confusing inclusion of the pop-culture section of this article. I would appreciate any feedback! Thank you. VAllezayJ (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atticusbixby.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JAB2017, BRD1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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

History of Whistleblowing
As of April 2018 the EU has implemented directives which seek to protect whistleblowers throughout Europe, however, the protection given in the majority of member states is still fragmented and uneven, with legislation remaining the exception rather than the rule. Only 10 EU Member States currently ensure that whistleblowers are fully protected. In the remaining countries, the protection granted is partial and only applies to specific sectors or categories of employee. Combining this with the results of a recent study by the EU, that revealed over a quarter of Europeans (26%) think it is acceptable to do a favour in return for something that they want from a public administration or the public services, results in an intimidating environment for those wishing to ‘speak up’.

The flaws in the legal protection for whistleblowers within the EU were recently showcased by the Luxembourg Leaks and Swiss Leaks - Antoine Deltour (LuxLeaks) and Herve Falciani (HSBC) have faced great personal and professional ramifications by exposing corruption and wrong doing in the public interest. Even within the UK, the recent scandal at Barclays Bank where CEO Jes Staley was fined for instructing employees to hunt and name an anonymous whistleblower, highlights the varying attitudes towards ‘speaking up’.

The USA meanwhile is regarded as an innovator of whistleblower protection. With Federal and National laws already in place, along with many state introduced laws, the USA receives amongst the highest number of reported instances of misconduct worldwide.