User talk:Penbat/David Drew

There is no shortage of material about Drew. Bit making it into a coherent article is hard. It's clear that his understanding of what went on, and those of his opponents, are radically different Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His book is a primary source WP:PRIMARY which are rather frowned upon in Wikipedia. I suggest not citing his book at all and instead citing newspaper articles for a summary of his "story". Anyway, his story is just too complex and lengthy to go in at that level. If his book is just mentioned as having been published, the reader can go away and read it if they wish to. However the media generally accept that he was a victim of skullduggery and the product of an inappropriate law. No adversary has threatened to sue Drew or publicly take issue with the content of his book which Drew claims is comprehensively supported by contemporary documentation such as emails. Drew still has creditability and notability as he is a high profile whistle-blowing campaigner and his story is taken on board by reputable newspapers. I have just done Eileen Chubb, another whistle blower, she also published a book on her experiences. The article I have done is more of a timeline of subsequent events - something similar could be done for Drew.

User:Penbat/Sharmila Chowdhury is easier, her "story" is less complicated and she won her court case, just that the hospital refused to take her back. Similar to Drew she is currently a high profile campaigner.--Penbat (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drew is worth writing about. But the fact that he lost his tribunal - rather comprehensively as far as I can see - is significant. His perception of what happened is at variance with others. Not all whistleblowers are in the right. It would be nice to bring that out - perhaps by referencing reviews of his book. And there is also the persecuted Christian angle. Is the tribunal decision a primary source we should avoid? Rathfelder (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not tackle User:Penbat/Sharmila Chowdhury & maybe come back to Drew later ? --Penbat (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the main reason Drew lost his case is the poor provision in law for whistleblowing in the UK, it is very unusual for a whistleblower to win a legal case. The merits or otherwise of his whistleblowing claims were an irrelevance to the legal case as it was subject to artificial narrow legal criteria. Unfortunately I dont have the legal knowledge to dissect this further short of spending time analysing his case.--Penbat (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should concentrate on the press coverage, being secondary sources. There is quite a lot of press coverage, some of them are listed here: https://about.me/NHSWhistleblowr However its quite complex and needs quite a lot of work to balance it out.--Penbat (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]