Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 5 August 2009

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Barack Obama (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Merge firing article

We shouldn't have an article about both of them; one fails BLP1E, the other fails NOT#NEWS. However, with the two combined, there is a possibility that this may meet our standards for political controversy articles. Sceptre 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the firing article has no context in the article, because it's all over here... Sceptre 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The policies seem clear that the articles should stay separate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Uh, what policies? Sceptre 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd wait for this AFD to be over before beginning the merge, but I agree that we don't need two articles here. If the AFD ends in 'keep', they should still be merged into a single article on the controversy. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• merge as soon as possible ... some of us are trying to link from other projects. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think they should stay separate per undue weight. Both are notable. Here are book sources on Walpin . He's been a high profile lawyer and been involved in many notable events. And the firing issue is also notable. It's possible it can be merged into a larger article on other firings now that those are in the news also. There's always a rush to censor these kinds of things instead of just working them up with patience. There is no rush to delete. Articles take time to develop, and if they don't turn out to be notable they can always be deleted later. It's much harder to work up a deleted article... But clearly some editors don't want anything on Misplaced Pages that isn't glowingly positve about Obama to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  It's not a censorship thing. It's more of a redundancy thing, and a readability thing. Why have two two-kilobyte articles that don't explain what you need to know, when you can have one three-kilobyte article that says exactly what you need to know? Not much of either article would be removed. Sceptre 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just provided a whole slew of sources on this subject. There are also lots of additional sources on the other subject, and it's in the news so more are sure to come. So please make yourself useful and expand the articles! :) They definitely need work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't make either article able of completeness; this article asks: "What EXACTLY is he notable for; there are sixty-three over Inspector Generals." and the other asks: "Who is this Gerald Walpin person?". Sceptre 01:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I created both articles, and when I did so, I redirected the biography article to the firing article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Walpin has now reached wp:GNG so his BLP is fine, but the firing incident is just a well-publicized blip for the moment. Build the BLP. Meanwhile the firing incident took on a life of it's own and is complex enough that it exclipses to BLP. If this BLP grows large enough then merging may make sense, meanwhile they are fine as stubs. -- Banjeboi 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this Engrish?

"The termination of his career amid controversies of Obama's administration fired him for doubtful reasons."

Outright deleting it will undoubtedly bunch up too many boxers, so I'll ask here; what is this trying to say, and can some copy-editing be done to make it a bit clearer? Tarc (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed per undue

I've removed this as way undue; the refs can be bundled a bit and the text trimmed way back but this appears POV and a bit Soapboxy which we should certainly avoid on a BLP. For thos new here this article was created to replace Gerald Walpin firing controversy article. This one cannot bloat with that content. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Half of the weight of this is due to the explanation of the original firing. So, I will place that elsewhere, as is appropriate, and restore the very significant detail of the letter in its current place. Trilemma (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You said, "For thos new here this article was created to replace Gerald Walpin firing controversy article." You are mistaken. I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Gerald Walpin firing controversy, not as a replacement for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This:

Is also unhelpful. We aren't a newspaper where this would be valuable information. The encyclopedic way would be to state "Walpin had bipartisan support after his firing" which seems rather unnotable. Likely we should see what happens and simply summarize that instead. -- Banjeboi 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that this has gained attention in major Washington news sources, I do not understand how one can claim that this is not relevant. You can offer to reword it, but I was sticking with the way the Hill presented it. Trilemma (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem that big of deal to warrant its inclusion on such a short BLP. To me the only relevant word is bipartisan and even that doesn't seem all that notable. Newsworthy? Yes, but we aren't a newspaper. This may be a case of recentism. Perhaps the next phase of his career or the news story will provide an appropriate avenue for addressing this encyclopedicly within the next few months. -- Banjeboi 00:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A clarification:

On June 26, 2009, I reverted:

• 03:50, 26 June 2009 Newross (talk | contribs) (revert WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP violation citing sources that are not WP:RELIABLE)

two sequential edits by Trilemma:

1. 03:11, 26 June 2009 Trilemma (talk | contribs) (restoring improperly deleted information)
2. 03:14, 26 June 2009 Trilemma (talk | contribs) (→Career: adding cites)
   
   

The first edit, adding a sentence about a letter of support from Walpin's allies and former colleagues, had been previously added 3 times by Trilemma and removed 3 times by Benjiboi as WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP and moved to this talk page section. I removed Trilemma's 4th addition of it because it is WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP (not because of a concern about the reliability of the cited source—TheHill.com).

The second edit by Trilemma—in response to Jayron32 adding a tag to a sentence not supported by its cited source—removed the tag and added three references, citing:

1. Andy McCarthy's National Review Online The Corner blog
2. Ed Morrissey's Hot Air blog
3. Salena Zito's Instapundit blog (linking to her opinion column in Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

I removed these three conservative blog references as WP:BLP violations citing sources that are not WP:RELIABLE. I then removed the tag and added a WP:RELIABLE June 16, 2009 Sacramento Bee news article that referred to—but did not link to—conservative blogs, editorials and op-eds that are not WP:RELIABLE.

Trilemma posted on my user talk page that "I would encourage you to read the sources listed before jumping to errant conclusions" and undid my revert:

• 12:49, 26 June 2009 Trilemma (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 298683896 by Newross (talk) Outrageous claim that The Hill is not reliable, wording is directly from a RS thus not SB)
  

Jayron32 removed Trilemma's 5th undue weight, soapbox addition of a sentence about a letter of support from Walpin's allies and former colleagues and 2nd addition of three conservative blog references that are not WP:RELIABLE:

• 14:04, 26 June 2009 Jayron32 (talk | contribs) (removed material that gives WP:UNDUE weight to blog-opinions.)
  

Trilemma again added a sentence about a letter of support from Walpin's allies and former colleagues (but did not again add the three conservative blog references that were not reliable sources):

• 23:34, 26 June 2009 Trilemma (talk | contribs) (restoring information incorrectly identified and deleted as coming from blogs)
  

Tarc removed Trilemma's 6th undue weight, soapbox addition of a sentence about a letter of support from Walpin's allies and former colleagues:

• 00:06, 27 June 2009 Tarc (talk | contribs) (The source isn't the issue, the issue is that it really isn't relevant to the bio of Gerald Walpin.)

Newross (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be included. Either he's coherent, or he's not. One side seems to be lying. That itself it notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My hunch is neither should be included. Either statement casts doubts on Walpin and neither add to the bio in a meaningful way. It's also a bit insiderish, is it really that notable that many folks supported him? It wouldn't seem so. Seriously I know this is important but this article is written as if his first 75 years on the planet didn't count for much. Building that material will show he had broad support - if indeed he did - and do so more neutrally. -- Banjeboi 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be included because it was cited by Obama as reason for firing him, and because the people who signed the petition defending him suggests that one of the two sides is lying. It is notable. I have no idea which side is lying, but I wish someone would hire some independent psychiatrists to evaluate him so we could find out which side is lying. I am also interested in seeing a transcript of this meeting where Obama says he was incoherent. I am interested in hearing more specifics about why he was fired, and why he was accused of being incoherent. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You said, "this article is written as if his first 75 years on the planet didn't count for much." That's because before he was fired, no one at wikipedia showed any interest in him. It was only after he was fired that any articles about him were created. If his life was notable before he was fired, then how come there were no wikipedia articles about him?Grundle2600 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Until the psychiatry findings are published in reliable sources we should liekly steer away from allegations and inuendo. What statements has Walpin himself made? -- Banjeboi 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

and again

I've trimmed more back leaving the sources in tact per WP:Undue trivia on a BLP; this is Walpin's BLP - most of this unneeded detail dwells "Other" things which don't need to be addressed here. Who cares if Johnson was an NBA star or Which Senator asked for better reason, etc. It's trivial information distracting from Walpin himself. Much of that degrades the article and suggests that we indeed are decoration a WP:Coatrack and building a WP:Soapbox. It would be much more constructive to let the recent and current event play out and expand and source his earlier career. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Firing of Gerald Walpin

I first created Firing of Gerald Walpin, and then later I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Firing of Gerald Walpin.

Firing of Gerald Walpin was later nominated for deletion.

During Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple editors suggested that the info from Firing of Gerald Walpin be merged into Gerald Walpin.

However, I see that only a very small amount of the information from Firing of Gerald Walpin has actually been put into Gerald Walpin.

As the Gerald Walpin article stands now, it is extremely unbalanced. It does not include most of the specific criticisms of his firing.

As was suggested during Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, I would like the rest of the information to be added to Gerald Walpin.

Here it is. What do other editors think?

A controversy arose in June, 2009, over the firing of Walpin by U.S. President Barack Obama, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, Obama said that the reason for the firing was because "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general... That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

According to Associated Press, during September 2008, Walpin discovered misuse of federal grants by Johnson and the St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit educational program founded by Johnson. Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. Associated Press also reported that Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for how he handled the investigation of Johnson and the academy. Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said that Walpin's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered from the investigation. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend and supporter of Obama.

On June 16, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), said the president failed to follow a law that she had sponsored, which requires that the President give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general's firing, along with the cause for the firing. McCaskill stated, "Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason." She also stated, "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible." That same day, a White House lawyer said that Walpin was fired because he was "unduly disruptive" and engaged in "trouble and inappropriate conduct."

U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R-California), who is the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also asked the White House for specifics about the firing. Issa stated, "Despite the requirement to notify Congress in advance of firing ... the White House moved swiftly to sack an investigator who uncovered wrongdoing and abuse by a political ally of the president."

The firing was considered controversial. For example, a Wall St. Journal editorial on the matter stated, "President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules... last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama."

(Note from grundle2600: I'm adding this one more paragraph to this talk section on July 10, 2009) In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. Signers of the letter included Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General), Bernard Nussbaum (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, John Martin, Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the Federal Bar Council. The letter can be read here. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Note from grundle2600: I'm adding this one more sentece to this talk section on July 13, 2009) The letter defending Walpin was also reported on by U.S. News & World Report, which put up a PDF of the letter here. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No. This is the type of stuff that is just coatracking criticism of Barack Obama, which is why the other article was deleted. If this is really to be a a WP:BLP of Walpin, then weight is not going to be given to the "controversy" allegations". Tarc (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Straightforward explanation of the controversy. You can probably leave off the last paragraph. That the firing is controversial is not really in doubt. Ray 17:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, is it not straightforward", it is a delving into irrelevant minutiae. 5 paragraphs is about 4.5 too long for something that, yes, isn't terribly controversial. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this incident is the primary cause of Walpin's notability, and it has a large effect on his public image, I hardly think details surrounding it are irrelevant. In fact, I hope to expand somewhat. The role of inspectors general and improper influence upon them is a fascinating topic in the evolution of the Executive branch of the American government. Ray 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The firing is not going to be the primary focus of the article. This is precisely the sort of junk that was deleted when the Gerald Walpin firing article was deleted. Using this article as a vehicle for a wider criticism of Obama and the "controversy" is going to run afoul of WP:BLP. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The firing is a major incident in the man's life. Different standards attain here - in AfD, the question is whether the incident itself is sufficiently notable for an article of its own, not whether it's relevant for inclusion into a biography of the person. Entirely different standards attain. I find your invocation of WP:BLP entirely out of context - a major investigation by an inspector general into public corruption is the very definition of public business, whereas WP:BLP is primarily concerned with the protection of an individual's privacy in their own sphere. Ray 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments everyone. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources from AFD

A topic-banned editor left a comment in the AFD that was deleted due to his ban, but the substance of it is non-controversial and helpful, so I post that portion of it here as my own: Loads of coverage including on Google Books where Walpin's work as Mia Farrow's attorney, assistant U.S. attorney, issues involving the Philipines and Cuba, as prosecutor etc. etc. etc. TJRC (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's been topic-banned from Gerald Walpin? That's ... extremely surprising. Ray 17:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They were topic banned from all Barack Obama-related articles, this clearly being one of those. This ban resulted from the recent Obama ArbCom case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly? Egad. Except for the firing business, Obama is not connected to this article. Walpin's investigation by itself deserves notice. Unless they're extending the topic ban to include everything related to contemporary US society. Ray 18:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly. Topic bans are generally defined broadly, not narrowly. And of course Obama is only related to Walpin in terms of "the firing business," but the simple fact is that this article was only created when Walpin was fired, which was the first time that anyone in the general public really heard of him. He was fired by President Obama directly, and this then became a bit of a political controversy whereby Obama was criticized, so this is most definitely an Obama related article (there are, in fact, a lot of those).

But obviously there are also about a bazillion things "related to contemporary US society" which have absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama, so I'm not sure why you bring in that phrase. If you want clarification about the scope of the topic ban in question (there was one other one just like it) you can ask for clarification at WP:RFAR, or you might just want to read through this which has recent comments from arbs about how far a topic ban extends. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see. CoM doesn't seem to be complaining about it, so I'll let this one pass. Ray 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<Comment by banned editor in violation of ban. Removed by CIreland (talk)>

Biography., yes, but it is still a person who was fired by the president, a firing which fringe circles are still in a tizzy about. So yea, I'd say that it is within the topic ban, and it'd be wise to err on the side of caution rather than split hairs. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<Comment by banned editor in violation of ban. Removed by CIreland (talk)>

That you can dismiss the controversy as confined to "fringe circles ... in a tizzy" suggests a lack of neutrality on your own part, especially in light of the subsequent firings and limitations that suggest a pattern of de-fanging the supposedly-independent Inspectors General. But, by defending the "fringe", I risk being classified as one myself, not unlike someone who tried to fight a lynching being called a "n----er lover" and beaten or killed. With that in mind, I suppose I may look forward to a topic ban of my own if I'm identified as a member of the Fringe Tizzy. I see from the above that topic-banned editors cannot even comment on a talk page of an article covered by the topic, which makes it a particularly harsh punishment indeed. Well, maybe there will be cool Fringe Circle T-shirts or something. The Monster (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What it "suggests" is the truth of the matter. Neutrality does not mean caving in to fringe POVs and giving them equal time/space with mainstream POVs. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced.

This article glosses over why Walpin was fired. In the section of this talk page called "Firing of Gerald Walpin" I cited the text from the original Firing of Gerald Walpin article, which I created. I later created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Firing of Gerald Walpin, because it seemed he was mainly notable for one event - his firing.

During Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple editors suggested that the info from Firing of Gerald Walpin be merged into Gerald Walpin. However, most of that info is not in this article.

This article glosses over the reasons for Walpin's firing. For example, it says that he filed a report "criticizing" Americorps. The word "criticizing" is a huge understatement. He didn't just "criticize" Americorp - he accused it of corruption. That's a huge difference

No one here at wikipedia had any interest in writing any articles about Walpin until after I created Firing of Gerald Walpin. And during Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing, multiple editors suggested that the info from Firing of Gerald Walpin be merged into Gerald Walpin. However, most of that info is not in this article.

It should be. During the deletion discussion, many editors said that that info should be merged to this article. But it has not been merged. It has been glossed over, downplayed, and largely ignored.

That makes this article unbalanced.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I agree. "criticizing" severely undersets the strength of the allegations, which go to gross misuse of public funds for personal purposes, with a background of allegations of sexual assault on minor schoolchildren. Similarly, we don't put enough detail to describe the final settlement of the scandal. This is the only blot on what looks to be an otherwise highly distinguished career. It deserves a fuller explanation, and such an explanation is far from undue. Ray 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I was not even aware of the allegations of abuse of children. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two of you are either reading a far different AfD from the one I am, or are simply misrepresenting the findings of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing. What "many editors" said in their keep&merge entries is largely irrelevant, given that the AfD closed due to WP:COATRACK concerns. That closing decision was not an invitation for your to word-for-word recreate that article's contents onto this one.

While I'm still not sure that this person is notable on his own, I lost that particular argument. So we're here now with the bio of a lawyer and former IG, whose firing by the president is noted and covered sufficiently. The mayor being a former basketball player is not relevant to the bio of Gerald Walpin. What Senator McCaskill has to say in response to the firing is not relevant to the biography of Gerald Walpin. A CNCS supplementary report is not relevant to the biography of Gerald Walpin. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc - Please explain why you think it's not relevant that, as a result of Walpin's investigation, more than $400,000 of funding was returned, by someone who was a friend of the President? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can help here, the context is that this agency has a massive budget and these kinds of settlements happen all the time. 400K is a relatively small amount in the bigger picture and that amount is not tied to this BLP; neither is the red herring that Johnson is a friend of the president - who likely has lots of friends - who may in fact be only a supporter and has denied talking to anyone in the Obama administration. Sadly I know all this having to dig through the various references to figure out what was verifiable. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the amount of money was the issue. What I meant is that Walpin exposed Obama's friend as having committed corruption, and was fired for it. How is that not relevant? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Debate over Walpin's coherency

This was removed from the article. It should be put back. One side says that Walpin is incoherent, and the other side says that he is not. This suggests that one side is lying. That is notable. It should be put back in the article.

On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 146 allies and former colleagues of Walpin, including Michael Mukasey and Bernard Nussbaum, signed a letter stating that Walpin was "essentially the opposite of someone who is 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions,'" some of the terms used in a June 16, 2009 White House letter explaining the reasons for Walpin's removal that said: "Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation. The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line between undue weight and an immovable, crushing mass. This one is even worse that what you and the other guy are suggesting above. Those who are trying to recreate the firing article here are beating a dead horse. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant, because the petition in defense of Walpin, as well as Obama's refusal to cite specific details, suggests that Obama's accusation of Walpin being incoherent was false. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would put it quite that way but ... agreed it sure feels like we are straying away from a bio and instead building up this one incident beyond what is needed. The drilling down to trivial detail could be quibbled about more if this article was massive. But it's not. The firing takes up all the lede, besides the lede sentence, and over half the rest of the article if not more. That is undue and imbalanced no matter how you stack it. -- Banjeboi 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Then please answer this question: Why is is that, before Walpin was fired, there were no wikipedia articles about him? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Umh, remember, you started the whole thing and should be aware of the timeline how it came to it, right? Sometimes you really make me smile, in a good way if I may say so.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that his firing is his main (and perhaps only) point of notability. Grundle2600 (talk)

And after the "firing article" was deleted by consensus we are unfortunately stuck with a bio where we have to show (and also still proof) the subjects notability besides his dismissal as it is only a small part of his whole life were we just don't know much of it. That's the problem here now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Well, that's kinda the catch-22 here, grundle. An article based around the firing cannot stand, as it is a coatrack of criticism, so we're left with a sparse WP:BLP that is stretched pretty thin since it cannot have too much delving into the firing criticism. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a third opinion; in the bigger picture it's just not that big of deal. To Walpin it may be; and to those who want to attach muck to Obama it's an opportunity to scandalize. Everyone else seems to want to focus on the economy, various world wars, health care and issues of more relevance and importance. If history bears our Walpin will find some think tank job and get awards from conservative groups for being a "true American hero". He may even write a book. -- Banjeboi 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a big deal to anyone who favors rule of law and government transparency. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a PDF of the letter that was signed by those people defending Walpin's coherency. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you people think it's not relevant that Obama fired a government whistleblower who accused one of Obama's friends of corruption as part of doing his whistleblowing job, and then Obama accused the whistleblower of being "incoherent," and then more than 100 people signed a petition denying Obama's claim that he was "incoherent"? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is extremely unbalanced

This article is extremely unbalanced, because it does not include the various well sourced, well publicized facts which I cited in previous sections of this talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin firing controversy should be undeleted.

This google search of "Gerald Walpin" shows that all of the most popular webpages about him are about his firing. This is the biggest reason he is noteworthy.

Misplaced Pages didn't even have the Gerald Walpin article until after he was fired. First I created Gerald Walpin firing controversy, and then afterward, I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Gerald Walpin firing controversy.

Here are some articles to prove how noteworthy his firing is: Washington Post, Washington Post 2, Washongton Post 3, New York Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Politico, Politico 2, examiner.com, examiner.com 2, examiner.com 3, San Francisco Chronicle, National Review, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, Altanta Journal Constitution, law.com, Youth Today, Fox News, Fox News 2, Fox News 3, Fox News 4, Fox News 5, Kansas City Star, Huffington Post, Brietbart, Salon, Wall St. Journal.

Therefore, Gerald Walpin firing controversy should be undeleted.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, that ship already sailed, and this isn't deletion review. If you really really want to bring it to DRV, though it is now a good 2+ weeks after the fact, I don't know how that would sit with your topic ban. Perhaps finding someone else to file on your behalf? I dunno how the admins feel about proxy maneuver like that. Honestly, I'd advise to just let it go. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would never edit the article during my topic ban. If this subject really is encyclopedic (which I think it is), it will still be relevant in the future, so perhaps it would be better if I waited a few more months to discuss it. I was not aware that there was a page called deletion review. Thank you for letting me know about it. In several months, perhaps I will raise this issue there, instead of on this article's talk page, because I agree with you that that is a more appropriate place. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Grundle on this one. Could the deleted article be userfied so I and others could take a swing at improving and possibly re-introducing it? - Schrandit (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see the section of this talk page titled "Firing of Gerald Walpin" for the relevant paragraphs. In addition, I also think this paragraph should be included too:

In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. Signers of the letter included Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General), Bernard Nussbaum (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, John Martin, Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the Federal Bar Council. The letter can be read here.

Grundle2600 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy was worth it's own page. The most that could be said, was put on this page and that's enough. Brothejr (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article does not mention the basic facts of his firing. Please see the next section of this talk page for my one paragraph proposal to summarize his firing. The information from that one paragraph is not mentioned in this article, but it should be. Right now, the article merely says that Walpin "criticized" St. HOPE Academy. The word "criticized" is an extreme understatement. He did not "criticize" it. He accused it of corruption. That's a huge difference. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need at all to userfy the old article. That is generally done to articles with notability or similar problems back in line with guidelines. The article was deleted for coatracking concerns, and no amount of editing can bring it out of that state; its very existence was deemed to be just a platform for anti-Obama rhetoric. As some guy would've said, if he were a wikipedia editor, "we work with the articles we have. Not the ones we'd like to have." That article is plain ol Gerald Walpin. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Two U.S. Senators have asked for a hearing on the firing. If such a hearing happens, that would justify undeleting Gerald Walpin firing controversy. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Could we put this one paragraph in the article?

This is a one paragraph summary of Walpin's firing. How about putting this in the article?

In June, 2009, President Barack Obama fired Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend of Obama's. Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.

Grundle2600 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Already discussed above and rejected. Minutiae of the firing is not relevant to the bio of Walpin. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says that Walpin "criticized" Johnson and Americorps. But he didn't just "criticize" them - he accused them of corruption. That's a huge difference. Also, while I do agree that the article does not necessarily have to have five or six paragraphs to explain his firing, it should have at least one accurate paragraph about the subject, including Obama's accusations against him, and the petition signed by over 100 prominent people claiming that Obama's accusations are false, and the petitions' claim that the firing was politically motivated. For you to refer to these things as "minutiae" is puzzling - please explain why you would use that word to describe these things. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The word "minutiae" is defined as "a minor detail, often of negligible importance." Please explain why you used that word to describe Walpin's accusation of corruption by Obama's friend, Obama's subsequent firing of Walpin, Obama's accusations against Walpin, the petition signed by over 100 prominent people claiming that Obama's accusations against Walpin were false, and the same petition claiming that Obama's firing of Walpin was politically motivated. Please explain why you think these things are "minor details" and are "of negligible importance." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you're lloking up policies and definitions check out WP:Undue and context. In short, let it go for now, wait a few months and see if the article isn't fine or indeed is lacking in coverage. meanwhile building up the early part of their career - thier notability - would be a welcome addition. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I will definitely wait a few months before I add anything to the article, whether it be about his birth, early life, education, personal life, family, career, hobbies, interests, etc., - because I have been topic banned from political articles for three months! That being said, I'd like to point something out to you: Before Walpin was fired, there was no wikipedia article about him. After he was fired, I created Gerald Walpin firing controversy, because wikipedia policy says that for people who are notable for one event, the article should be about the event, not the person. Then, I created Gerald Walpin as a redirect to Gerald Walpin firing controversy. In the original article, I had many paragrpahs about his firing. The one paragraph that I am now suggesting for Gerald Walpin is a very shortened, highly condensed version of that. Having one paragraph about the most notable thing about the subject is not "undue," and it's not "out of context." Please explain to me why you think that Walpin accusing Obama's friend of corruption, Obama's firing of Walpin, Obama's accusations against Walpin, and a bipartisian petition signed by more than 100 prominent people claiming that Obama's accusations against Walpin are false, are "undue" and "out of context." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're still hung up on "controversy" of the firing, where there is none to be found. Unreliable sources made the firing out to be a grand conspiracy of hushing up investigations into a presidential buddy. We already have a shortened, condensed version of the firing. Delving into who said what afterwards, claims and counterclaims and petitions are of no relevance to a biographical article. Stop creating new sections every few days about a dead issue, please. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I am still "hung up" on this is because you and the other people here keep ignoring my questions. Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama fired Walpin after Walpin accused one of Obama's freinds of corruption. Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama justified firing Walpin by accusing Walpin of being incoherent, but then more than 100 prominent people signed a bipartisian petition saying that Obama's accusations against Walpin were false. Please explain why you think The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, Politico, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, The Altanta Journal Constitution, Brietbart, Associated Press Salon, and the Wall St. Journal are not "reliable" sources." Until you answer these questions, I will never stop being "hung up" on this. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All of this and more have already been addressed numerous times, both here and in the AfD that canned your original coatrack article. Unreliable sources made it into a scandalous controversy. Reliable sources covered the firing, yes, but the level of detail they may go into is not appropriate for this article, per WP:UNDUE. This is an ongoing and continuing problem with you, this "it must go into the article if it is reliably sourced!" argument. It seems that you still haven't learned a thing from why you were topic banned. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is that deletion discussion. Please quote the answers to my questions, which you claim are answered in that discussion: 1) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama fired Walpin after Walpin accused one of Obama's freinds of corruption. 2) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama justified firing Walpin by accusing Walpin of being incoherent, but then more than 100 prominent people signed a bipartisian petition saying that Obama's accusations against Walpin were false. 3) Please explain why you think The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, Politico, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, The Altanta Journal Constitution, Brietbart, Associated Press Salon, and the Wall St. Journal are not "reliable" sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am quite done with your and your WP:IDHT stance on this issue, and I am not about to be drawn in to a red herring debate on the firing itself, as you seem wont to do. Adieu. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "disruptive" about me asking you to answer a few simple questions? 1) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama fired Walpin after Walpin accused one of Obama's freinds of corruption. 2) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama justified firing Walpin by accusing Walpin of being incoherent, but then more than 100 prominent people signed a bipartisian petition saying that Obama's accusations against Walpin were false. 3) Please explain why you think The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, Politico, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, The Altanta Journal Constitution, Brietbart, Associated Press Salon, and the Wall St. Journal are not "reliable" sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The more you continue to ask questions that have already be answered, ad nauseam, the more disruptive you become. Thankfully the topic ban keeps this junk in talk space rather than article space. Hell, without the ban, we'd probably all be wasting time at an AfD for your Obama and Mayara Tavares butt-looking controversy article. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(No indent) You keep saying those questions have already been answered, but you refuse to quote the answers. That's because they have not been answered. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600, seriously, walk away before you earna talkpage ban as well. There seems little interest in engaging you point for point here, or likely elsewhere. Personally I saw precious little to support the retribution scandal angle but if there is one wait until mainstream media are making those connections. Focus on improving articles that have nothing to do with politics or even curent issues and earn some goodwill. Personally I have often had to go back and clean up content that was a bit bloated because of recentism. To a degree that is the nature of this encyclopedia - an article quickly grows one area of news only to have that same content trimmed back in hindsight - when it's scandalous, negaitve or otherwise gossipy content it's usually best to not let it grow much in the first place. Leave it for now and see if anyone cares about the "scandal" in a few months. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thanks for the advice. Yes, if and when the media is still paying attention to this in three months, my case for adding it to the article will be stronger. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also want to point out that Tarc has not answered my questions. Also, even though Tarc claims that my questions were already answered, he has not quoted these alleged answers. I maintain my claim that my questions have not been answered, and that this information is appropriate for this article. I also claim that a person should never be blocked from a talk page for asking relevant, polite questions on the talk page. If anyone here is being uncivil, it is Tarc, for repeatedly claiming that my 3 questions above have already been answered, but simultaneously refusing to quote the alleged answers. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Walpin v. Obama have its own article?

I think it should. What does anyone else think? Grundle2600 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it'd just be another side of the same Gerald Walpin firing controversy coin, no. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. It is not sufficiently WP:Note. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some context

Scope

In fiscal 2006:

• The Corporation for National and Community Service OIG had 23 employees and a budget of $6 million.
  (by far the smallest of any Presidentially-appointed IG,
  except the Export-Import Bank OIG which didn’t begin operation until fiscal 2007;
  5 of 34 OIGs of non-Presidentially-appointed IGs were larger than the CNCS OIG)
• The Corporation for National and Community Service had 600 employees and a budget of $900 million.
  
• The Federal government had 3.8 million employees and a budget of $2.7 trillion.

What would Reagan do?

• Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981). Letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on the Inspector General Appointees of Certain Executive Agencies
• Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981). Letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on the Inspector General Appointees of the Department of Energy
• Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981). Letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate on the Inspector General Appointee of the Department of Health and Human Services
• Light, Paul Charles (1993). Monitoring Government: Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. ISBN 0815752563, pp. 102, 103:

  In his second act as president—the first having been to impose a hiring freeze—Reagan wrote the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate to inform Congress of his decision to "remove from office the current appointees to the position of Inspector General." His reason was simple: "As is the case with all positions where I, as President, have the power of appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the ability, integrity and commitment of each appointee to the position of Inspector General." Nevertheless, all of the Carter IGs were fired.
  
  The IGs had not been forewarned either. Inez Reid, the EPA IG, explained as follows: "I learned that I was 'fired,' as the news media puts it, by watching the evening television news at the end of the working day. No one had informed me by telephone or in writing prior to the news broadcasts that I was to be removed."

• Weisman, Steven R. (January 22, 1981). Reagan moves fast to swear in staff and drop holdovers The New York Times p. A1:

  The president dismissed the inspectors general because he wanted a "Reagan team" to carry out their tasks, according to James S. Brady, the White House Press Secretary.
  
  Although all Carter Administration appointees had already been informally asked to resign, the inspectors general in the different Cabinet agencies may be dismissed by the President only after he gives his reason to Congress. Accordingly, Mr. Reagan's action today came with letters to Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. of the House and Senator Strom Thurmond, President pro tem of the Senate, declaring he had exercised his power to remove them from office.

• Pear, Robert (February 3, 1981). Ouster of all Inspectors General by Reagan called political move The New York Times p. B14:

  The main proponent of the law that established inspectors general to investigate waste and corruption in 13 Federal agencies says that President Reagan violated the spirit of the law by dismissing all the incumbents from office.
  
  Nine of the inspectors general were career Federal employees who had served in nonpolitical positions in Republican and Democratic administrations. Five of the nine started working for the Federal Government in the Eisenhower Administration.
  
  Under the law, the President has the authority to remove an inspector general if he tells Congress his reasons. But Mr. Fountain contended: "It was never intended, however, that inspectors general be automatically replaced on a wholesale basis without regard to their individual merits whenever there is a change of administrations.

What would Bush do?

Luise S. Jordan, 1st CNCS IG (1994–2002)

• Clinton, William J. (July 1, 1994). Digest of Other White House Announcements Luise S. Jordan to be CNCS IG
• Clinton, William J. (August 14, 1994). Nominations Submitted to the Senate Luise S. Jordan to be CNCS IG
• U.S. House Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff (January 7, 2005).The politicization of Inspectors General; prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, p. 19. Luise S. Jordan
• Walsh, Edward. (April 11, 2002). Inspectors General ousted at 2 agencies; Moves raise concerns for watchdogs' role The Washington Post, p. A21:

  In 1981, a newly elected president who had promised to reduce government spending by rooting out "waste, fraud and abuse" did something unexpected: He fired the government officials who were in charge of finding and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. The officials were the inspectors general in various government departments, a new position created by legislation enacted in 1978. Eventually, about half the IGs who were dismissed by President Ronald Reagan were rehired, but the episode caused such a political uproar that since then these internal watchdogs have generally been off-limits to the usual partisan turnover when control of the executive branch changes.
  
  That may still be the case under President Bush, but recently two inspectors general were quietly forced out of their jobs, causing a ripple of anxiety within the IG community.
  
  They were both given the bad news on Valentine's Day. According to Luise S. Jordan, the IG at the Corporation for National and Community Service since 1994, she was summoned to a meeting with Ed Moy, an associate director in the presidential personnel office.
  
  "I was told I had done a good job. I was complimented on the achievements of my office, but the second paragraph, after all these compliments and making it clear this was not a dismissal for cause, was that the corporation had decided to get a new IG," Jordan recalled.
  
  The same day, Roberta L. Gross, the IG at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since 1995, was given a similar message by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe.
  
  "He said the White House was in the process of selecting somebody else" for the IG job, Gross said. "He said it was time to move on."
  
  Replacements for Jordan and Gross were named quickly, indicating that the process of replacing them was well underway before the Valentine's Day meetings.
  
  Both Jordan and Gross officially "resigned." But their departures were far from voluntary, and they illustrated the unusual position that the IGs occupy within the federal bureaucracy.
  
  IGs are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, just as other senior political appointees are. They serve at the pleasure of the president and can only be removed by the president. But since the Reagan purge more than 20 years ago, the IGs have been viewed as being in a special category of their own.
  
  "From then on, presidents have been loath to fire them," said Paul C. Light, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution. "There is no tradition of firing an IG. Generally, it is up to the IG to determine when he or she is going to leave."

J. Russell George, 2nd CNCS IG (2002–2004), 2nd TIGTA (2004– )

• Bush, George W. (February 26, 2002). President Bush to Nominate Two Individuals to Serve in His Administration J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (February 27, 2002). Nominations Sent to the Senate J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (April 9, 2002). Nominations, Appointments and Designation J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (November 19, 2003). Personnel Announcement J. Russell George to be TIGTA
• Bush, George W. (November 19, 2003). Nomination Sent to the Senate J. Russell George to be TIGTA
• Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) (November 19, 2006). Meet the IG: J. Russell George
• U.S. House Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff (January 7, 2005).The politicization of Inspectors General; prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, p. 14. J. Russell George
• U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (July 7, 2004) S. Hrg. 108-642. Nominations of J. Russell George, Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., Timothy Bitsberger, and Paul Jones Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, p. 55:

  Published writings: "Why Blacks Should Vote for Bush," published on a web site directed towards African-American professionals, October 2000.

• Bush, George W. (October 8, 2004). Personnel Announcement Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (October 8, 2004). Nominations and Withdrawals Sent to the Senate Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (January 24, 2005). Nominations Sent to the Senate Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
• Bush, George W. (December 13, 2005). Nominations and Withdrawals Sent to the Senate Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG withdrawal

Inspector General Reform Act of 2008

• Inspector General Act of 1978 (October 12, 1978) section 3(b):

  An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.
  The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.

• Cooper, Jim; et al. (February 8, 2007). H.R.928 Improving Government Accountability Act, revise section 3(b):

  An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.
  The President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress and to the Inspector General of the establishment at least 30 days before such removal.
  An Inspector General may be removed from office prior to the expiration of his or her term only on any of the following grounds:
  (1) Permanent incapacity.
  (2) Inefficiency.
  (3) Neglect of duty.
  (4) Malfeasance.
  (5) Conviction of a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.
  (6) Knowing violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
  (7) Gross mismanagement.
  (8) Gross waste of funds.
  (9) Abuse of authority.

• Bush, George W. (October 1, 2007). Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 928 - To Amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to Enhance the Independence of the Inspectors General, to Create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for Other Purpose
• Barr, Stephen (October 2, 2007). Administration opposes bill on Inspectors General The Washington Post, p. D04.
• U.S. House (October 3, 2007). Roll call 937: H.R.928 Improving Government Accountability Act Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 404 - 11
• McCaskill, Claire; Lieberman, Joseph I.; Collins, Susan M.; et al. (November 8, 2007). S.2324 Inspector General Reform Act of 2007, revise section 3(b):

  An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.
  If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment,
  the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress,
  not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.

• Kyl, Jon (April 23, 2008). S.AMDT.475 (to modify provisions relating to transfers and removals) to S.2324 Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, add to section 3(b):

  Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

• U.S. Senate (April 23, 2008). S.AMDT.475 agreed to by Unanimous Consent
• U.S. Senate (April 23, 2008). S.2324 Inspector General Act of 2008 as amended by S.AMDT.475 passed Senate by Unanimous Consent
• Barr, Stephen (April 25, 2008). Compromise takes shape for Inspectors General bill The Washington Post, p. D04.
• McCaskill, Claire (September 24, 2008). S.AMDT.5644 to H.R. 928 Inspector General Reform Act of 2008
• U.S. Senate (September 24, 2008). S.AMDT.5644 agreed to by Unanimous Consent
• U.S. Senate (September 24, 2008). H.R.928 Inspector General Act of 2008 as amended by S.AMDT.5644 passed by Unanimous Consent
• U.S. House (September 27, 2008). Roll call 661: Senate Amendment S.AMDT.5644 agreed to by recorded vote: 414 - 0
• George W. Bush (October 14, 2008). Signed H.R.928 Inspector General Act of 2008 to become Public Law No: 110-409, revise section 3(b):

  An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.
  If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment,
  the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress,
  not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.
  Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

Newross (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Better context: Did Obama lie, or did more than 100 prominent, bipartisian people lie?

In June, 2009, President Barack Obama fired Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The point was, as the actions of past presidents has indicated, that they can be fired at will. A line or two about his lawsuit is fine, of course. But as we've shown time and time again, no one but the Limbaughs of the political spectrum are drumming up mass conspiracy and faux outrage over the firing. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is neutral language about the controversy and its coverage sourced to the Sacramento Bee being removed?

Some blogs, editorials and op-eds alleged the firing was politically motivated, as it occurred after Walpin's investigation of St. HOPE Academy founder and former CEO—Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson—an Obama supporter, for misuse of AmeriCorps funds. ref Lillis, Ryan; Gutierrez, Melody (June 16, 2009). "Beltway bloggers abuzz over Johnson, investigator's firing". The Sacramento Bee. p. A1. Retrieved 2009-06-26.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) /ref

ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 
   * Crabtree, Susan (June 24, 2009). "Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense". TheHill.com. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
   * Abbey, Arthur N.; et al. (June 23, 2009). "Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig" (PDF). National Review Online. Retrieved 2009-06-24. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
2. ^
   * Dann, Carrie (June 17, 2009). "Ousted IG cited for behavior, absences from Washington". CongressDaily AM. NationalJournal.com. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
   * Eisen, Norman L. (June 16, 2009). "Letter to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Sen. Susan M. Collins, cc: Sen. Claire McCaskill" (PDF). NationalJournal.com. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
3. 
   * Crabtree, Susan (June 24, 2009). "Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense". TheHill.com. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
   * Abbey, Arthur N.; et al. (June 23, 2009). "Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig" (PDF). National Review Online. Retrieved 2009-06-24. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
4. ^ Sanner, Ann; Yost, Pete (Associated Press) (June 12, 2009). "Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend". breitbart.com. Retrieved 2009-06-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Grassley wants more details on fired AmeriCorps IG, Associated Press, June 15, 2009
6. ^ White House: IG canned because he was 'disruptive', Associated Press, June 16, 2009
7. editorial (June 16, 2009). "The White House fires a watchdog". The Wall Street Journal. p. A14. Retrieved 2009-06-16.
8. W.H.: Fired IG 'confused, disoriented', Politico, June 17, 2009
9. Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, thehill.com, June 24, 2009
10. Even Political Foes Cheer on Fired AmeriCorps Inspector General Walpin, U.S. News & World Report, June 24, 2009
11. 
    * Crabtree, Susan (June 24, 2009). "Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense". TheHill.com. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
    * Abbey, Arthur N.; et al. (June 23, 2009). "Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig" (PDF). National Review Online. Retrieved 2009-06-24. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
12. W.H.: Fired IG 'confused, disoriented', Politico, June 17, 2009
13. Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, thehill.com, June 24, 2009
14. Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend, Associated Press, June 12, 2009
15. Grassley wants more details on fired AmeriCorps IG, Associated Press, June 15, 2009
16. W.H.: Fired IG 'confused, disoriented', Politico, June 17, 2009
17. Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, thehill.com, June 24, 2009
18. Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend, Associated Press, June 12, 2009
19. Grassley wants more details on fired AmeriCorps IG, Associated Press, June 15, 2009
20. W.H.: Fired IG 'confused, disoriented', Politico, June 17, 2009
21. Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, thehill.com, June 24, 2009

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles