Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gerald Walpin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:54, 5 August 2009 editChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:10, 5 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,684 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(86 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|listas=Walpin, Gerald}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama |class= |importance=Low}}
{{oldafdfull|page=Gerald Walpin|date=25 June 2009|result='''keep'''}} {{oldafdfull|page=Gerald Walpin|date=25 June 2009|result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=no|listas=Walpin, Gerald|
{{WikiProject Biography|auto=inherit}}
{{WikiProject Barack Obama|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Archive box | ] }}


== Merge firing article == == NPOV tag ==


The article violates BLP and NPOV by failing to mention Kevin Johnson, Walpin's side of the story in his firing, the Congressional demands for investigation into Walpin's firing, and the reasoning behind the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, all of which lead to an unfair assessment of Walpin. ] (]) 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Additionally, the firing article has no context in the article, because it's all over here... ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*The policies seem clear that the articles should stay separate. ] (]) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*:Uh, what policies? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


:On the contrary, giving weight to a faux controversy in a biographical article is what would stray into undue territory. This has been hashed and rehashed a million times over, and is a pet obsession of a prolific sockmaster, Grundle2600. The archives above will show extensive conversation on the matter. ] (]) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
*I'd wait for ] 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. ] (]) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


::Why the ''ad hominem''? I'm not Grundle2600. I didn't participate in the earlier discussion. Right now, this article borders on libelous. How hard is it to have a single sentence acknowledging that the firing was controversial, and Walpin's side of the story? It's not like there aren't multiple RS discussing it. You could make the section '''shorter''' and still more balanced and convey more accurate information than it does now. ] (]) 23:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
*merge as soon as possible ... some of us are trying to link from other projects. --] (]) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I didn't say you were Grundle (though of course I checked to see if you were a new user, as your name was unfamiliar), but you are echoing an edit that he has sought for a long time, which has been soundly rejected by a consensus in the past. Hence the "check the archives" pointer. ] (]) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


{{outdent}}Well, I'm making a new argument, and I further note that the recent elections have changed the notability of the issue--nothing in the archive reflects recent November 2010 press coverage. Reduce the section to four or five sentences: (paraphrasing) 1) Walpin was appointed to the IG position by Bush, and dismissed by Obama. 2) Walpin claimed that the firing was politically motivated because of his investigation of Kevin Johnson; Republicans called for an investigation, and have stated that one will take place in 2011; the Obama administration denied any wrongdoing. 3) An investigation of a complaint by the US attorney against Walpin that the Obama administration cited as a reason for the dismissal cleared Walpin of any wrongdoing. 4) Walpin sued over his dismissal, and a district court ruled that the law did not permit judicial review of the executive decision.
*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. ] (]) 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. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. ] (]) 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?". ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


I fail to see why any of that is problematic: it's more concise, it's more neutral, it's more fair to Walpin, it conveys more information, and it more accurately conveys what the cited secondary sources (and more recent secondary sources from November 2010) say. ] (]) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I created both articles, and when I did so, I redirected the biography article to the firing article. ] (]) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


==Further NPOV problem: UNDUE==
*'''Oppose merge'''. Walpin has now reached ] 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. ] 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Walpin was a prominent litigator for decades who received nationwide press coverage, but the majority of the article is about the Obama administration's smear of Walpin (without fairly indicating that it was a smear). ] (]) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


== Is this Engrish? == == External links modified ==


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


I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
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? ] (]) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813000106/http://ignet.gov/igs/ighistory.pdf to http://www.ignet.gov/igs/ighistory.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090617_5607.php
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/news/Letter_6_16_2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701185826/http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/organization_board.asp to http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/organization_board.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701200940/http://www.cncsig.gov/StHopeSR.html to http://www.cncsig.gov/StHopeSR.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701213042/http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/ResponseToSenate.pdf to http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/StHope/ResponseToSenate.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701200934/http://www.cncsig.gov/CUNY.html to http://www.cncsig.gov/CUNY.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628062217/http://www1.usaid.gov/oig/IG_Act-with_Reform_Act_8.5x11_Dec5.pdf to http://www.usaid.gov/oig/IG_Act-with_Reform_Act_8.5x11_Dec5.pdf


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


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
{{cquote|
On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 146 allies and former colleagues of Walpin, including ] and ], signed a letter stating that Walpin was "essentially the opposite of someone who is 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions,'"<ref><br />* {{cite web |author=Crabtree, Susan |date=June 24, 2009 |title=Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense |publisher=] |url=http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/allies-of-official-fired-by-obama-mount-defense-2009-06-24.html |accessdate=2009-06-24}}<br /> * {{cite web |author=Abbey, Arthur N., et al. |date=June 23, 2009 |title=Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig |publisher=] |url=http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/06/24/descriptionwalpin.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Dann 2009"><br />* {{cite web |author=Dann, Carrie |date=June 17, 2009 |title=Ousted IG cited for behavior, absences from Washington |work=CongressDaily AM |publisher=] |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090617_5607.php |accessdate=2009-06-24}}<br />* {{cite web |author=Eisen, Norman L.|date=June 16, 2009 |title=Letter to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Sen. Susan M. Collins, cc: Sen. Claire McCaskill |publisher=] |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/news/Letter_6_16_2009.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24}}</ref> }}


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
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. ] 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: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. ] (]) 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::You said, "For thos new here this article was created to replace Gerald Walpin firing controversy article." You are mistaken. I created ] as a <i>redirect</i> to ], not as a <i>replacement</i> for it. ] (]) 15:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::This:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627000602/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/press_releases/docs/2009/04-09-09JohnsonSettlement.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/press_releases/docs/2009/04-09-09JohnsonSettlement.pdf
{{cquote|On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 146 allies and former colleagues of Walpin, including ] and ], signed a letter stating that Walpin was "essentially the opposite of someone who is 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions,'"<ref><br />* {{cite web |author=Crabtree, Susan |date=June 24, 2009 |title=Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense |publisher=] |url=http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/allies-of-official-fired-by-obama-mount-defense-2009-06-24.html |accessdate=2009-06-24}}<br /> * {{cite web |author=Abbey, Arthur N., et al. |date=June 23, 2009 |title=Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig |publisher=] |url=http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/06/24/descriptionwalpin.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24}}</ref> }}


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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. ] 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
: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. ] (]) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:52, 14 October 2017 (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. ] 00:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::A clarification:<br />
::On June 26, 2009, I reverted:
::* ] (] | ]) ''(revert ] and ] violation citing sources that are not ])''
::two sequential edits by Trilemma:
::# ] (] | ]) ''(restoring improperly deleted information)''
::# ] (] | ]) ''(→Career: adding cites)''<br /><br />
::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 ] and ] and moved to this talk page section. I removed Trilemma's ''<u>4th</u>'' addition of it because it is ] and ] (''not'' because of a concern about the reliability of the cited source—]).<br /><br />The second edit by Trilemma—in response to Jayron32 adding a {{who}} tag to a sentence not supported by its cited source—removed the {{who}} tag and added three references, citing:
::# ]'s ] ''The Corner'' blog
::# ]'s ] blog
::# Salena Zito's ] blog (linking to her opinion column in ]'s '']'')
::I removed these three conservative blog references as ] violations citing sources that are not ]. I then removed the {{who}} tag and added a ] June 16, 2009 '']'' news article that referred to—but did not ''link'' to—conservative blogs, editorials and op-eds that are not ].<br /><br />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:
::* ] (] | ]) ''(] revision 298683896 by ] (]) Outrageous claim that The Hill is not reliable, wording is directly from a RS thus not SB)''<br />
::Jayron32 removed Trilemma's ''<u>5th</u>'' 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 ]:
::* ] (] | ]) ''(removed material that gives ] weight to blog-opinions.)''<br />
::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):
::* ] (] | ]) ''(restoring information incorrectly identified and deleted as coming from blogs)''<br />
::Tarc removed Trilemma's ''<u>6th</u>'' undue weight, soapbox addition of a sentence about a letter of support from Walpin's allies and former colleagues:
::* ] (] | ]) ''(The source isn't the issue, the issue is that it really isn't relevant to the bio of Gerald Walpin.)''
:: ] (]) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:I think it should be included. Either he's coherent, or he's not. One side seems to be lying. That itself it notable. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] articles about him?] (]) 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? ] 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
===and again===
I've trimmed more back leaving the sources in tact per ] 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 ] and building a ]. It would be much more constructive to let the recent and current event play out and expand and source his earlier career. ] 10:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Firing of Gerald Walpin ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506163037/http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/Bios/MeetWalpin.pdf to http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/Bios/MeetWalpin.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache%3A9a5gIJniAJEJ%3Awww.cncsig.gov%2FPDF%2FBios%2FMeetWalpin.pdf+meetwalpin


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I first created ], and then later I created ] as a redirect to ].


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
] was later nominated for deletion.


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
During ], multiple editors suggested that the info from ] be merged into ].

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

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

As was suggested during ], I would like the rest of the information to be added to ].

Here it is. What do other editors think?


A controversy arose in June, 2009, over the firing of Walpin by U.S. President ], after Walpin accused ] mayor ] of misuse of ] funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to House Speaker ] and Vice President ], 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."<ref name=AssociatedPressJune122009>{{cite web |author=Sanner, Ann; Yost, Pete (]) |date=June 12, 2009 |title=Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend |publisher=] |url=http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98P72OO0 |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref>

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.<ref>, Associated Press, June 15, 2009</ref> According to ], Johnson is a friend and supporter of Obama.<ref name=AssociatedPressJune122009/>

On June 16, U.S. Senator ] (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."<ref name=AssociatedPressJune162009>, Associated Press, June 16, 2009</ref>

U.S. Representative ] (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."<ref name=AssociatedPressJune162009/>

The firing was considered controversial. For example, a ] 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."<ref>{{cite news |author=editorial |date=June 16, 2009 |title=The White House fires a watchdog |work=] |page=A14 |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html |accessdate=2009-06-16}}</ref>

(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."<ref>, Politico, June 17, 2009</ref> 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 ] (former Attorney General), ] (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, ], Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the ].<ref>, thehill.com, June 24, 2009</ref> The letter can be read . ] (]) 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,<ref>, U.S. News & World Report, June 24, 2009</ref> which put up a PDF of the letter . ] (]) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

] (]) 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 ] of Walpin, then ] is not going to be given to the "controversy" allegations". ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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. ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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 ] article was deleted. Using this article as a vehicle for a wider criticism of Obama and the "controversy" is going to run afoul of ]. ] (]) 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 ] entirely out of context - a major investigation by an inspector general into public corruption is the very ''definition'' of public business, whereas ] is primarily concerned with the protection of an individual's privacy in their own sphere. <strong>]</strong>] 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments everyone. ] (]) 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.'' ] (]) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
:Somebody's been topic-banned from Gerald Walpin? That's ... extremely surprising. <strong>]</strong>] 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. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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 ] (there was one other one just like it) you can ask for clarification at ], or you might just want to read through ] which has recent comments from arbs about how far a topic ban extends. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 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. <strong>]</strong>] 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::<small><Comment by banned editor in violation of ban. Removed by ] (])></small>
:::::::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. ] (]) 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::<small><Comment by banned editor in violation of ban. Removed by ] (])></small>
::::::::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. ] (]) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::What it "suggests" is the truth of the matter. Neutrality does not mean caving in to ] POVs and giving them equal time/space with mainstream POVs. ] (]) 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 ] article, which I created. I later created ] as a redirect to ], because it seemed he was mainly notable for one event - his firing.

During ], multiple editors suggested that the info from ] be merged into ]. 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 <i>corruption</i>. That's a huge difference

No one here at[REDACTED] had any interest in writing any articles about Walpin until after I created ]. And during ], multiple editors suggested that the info from ] be merged into ]. 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.

] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. And I was not even aware of the allegations of abuse of children. ] (]) 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 ]. What "many editors" said in their keep&merge entries is largely irrelevant, given that the AfD closed due to ] 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, ] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] 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? ] (]) 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 ] and ], signed a letter stating that Walpin was "essentially the opposite of someone who is 'confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions,'"<ref><br />* {{cite web |author=Crabtree, Susan |date=June 24, 2009 |title=Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense |publisher=] |url=http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/allies-of-official-fired-by-obama-mount-defense-2009-06-24.html |accessdate=2009-06-24}}<br /> * {{cite web |author=Abbey, Arthur N., et al. |date=June 23, 2009 |title=Letter to Sens. Lieberman, Collins, Baucus and Grassley, Reps. Towns and Issa, and White House Counsel Craig |publisher=] |url=http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/06/24/descriptionwalpin.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24}}</ref> 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."<ref name="Dann 2009"><br />* {{cite web |author=Dann, Carrie |date=June 17, 2009 |title=Ousted IG cited for behavior, absences from Washington |work=CongressDaily AM |publisher=] |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20090617_5607.php |accessdate=2009-06-24}}<br />* {{cite web |author=Eisen, Norman L.|date=June 16, 2009 |title=Letter to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Sen. Susan M. Collins, cc: Sen. Claire McCaskill |publisher=] |url=http://www.nationaljournal.com/img/news/Letter_6_16_2009.pdf |accessdate=2009-06-24}}</ref>

] (]) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
:There's a fine line between ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
::Then please answer this question: Why is is that, before Walpin was fired, there were no[REDACTED] articles about him? ] (]) 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.--] (]) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

::::My point is that his firing is his main (and perhaps only) point of notability. ] (])

:::::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.--] (]) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

:::(ec)Well, that's kinda the ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

is a PDF of the letter that was signed by those people defending Walpin's coherency. ] (]) 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"? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] should be undeleted. ==

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 ] article until <i>after</i> he was fired. First I created ], and then afterward, I created ] as a <i>redirect</i> to ].

Here are some articles to prove how noteworthy his firing is: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Therefore, ] should be undeleted.

] (]) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Grundle, ], and this isn't ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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? - ] (]) 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."<ref>, Politico, June 17, 2009</ref> 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 ] (former Attorney General), ] (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, ], Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the ].<ref>, thehill.com, June 24, 2009</ref> The letter can be read .
::::] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] would've said, if he were a[REDACTED] editor, ''"we work with the articles we have. Not the ones we'd like to have."'' That article is plain ol ]. ] (]) 12:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Two U.S. Senators have for a hearing on the firing. If such a hearing happens, that would justify undeleting ]. ] (]) 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 ] fired Walpin, after Walpin accused ] mayor ] and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of ] funding to pay for school-board political activities. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend of Obama's.<ref>, Associated Press, June 12, 2009</ref> Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007.<ref>, Associated Press, June 15, 2009</ref> 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."<ref>, Politico, June 17, 2009</ref> 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.<ref>, thehill.com, June 24, 2009</ref> The letter can be read .

] (]) 09:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
:Already discussed above and rejected. Minutiae of the firing is not relevant to the bio of Walpin. ] (]) 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 <i>corruption</i>. 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. ] (]) 02:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
::The word "minutiae" is 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." ] (]) 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
:::As long as you're lloking up policies and definitions check out ] 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. ] 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[REDACTED] article about him. After he was fired, I created ], because[REDACTED] policy says that for people who are notable for one event, the article should be about the event, not the person. Then, I created ] as a <i>redirect</i> to ]. In the original article, I had many paragrpahs about his firing. The one paragraph that I am now suggesting for ] 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." ] (]) 15:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::You're still hung up on "controversy" of the firing, where there is none to be found. ''Un''reliable 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: 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. ] (]) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I am quite done with your and your ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

== Should Walpin v. Obama have its own article? ==

I think it should. What does anyone else think? ] (]) 17:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:Since it'd just be another side of the same ] coin, no. ] (]) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for answering. ] (]) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:In my opinion, no. It is not sufficiently ]. Cheers, --] (]) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== Some context ==
=== Scope ===
In ] 2006:
* The Corporation for National and Community Service ] had 23 employees and a budget of $6 million.<br />(by far the smallest of any Presidentially-appointed IG,<br />except the Export-Import Bank OIG which didn’t begin operation until fiscal 2007;<br />5 of 34 OIGs of non-Presidentially-appointed IGs were larger than the CNCS OIG)
* The ] had 600 employees and a budget of $900 million.<br />
* The ] had 3.8 million employees and a ] of $2.7 trillion.

=== ] ===
* Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981).
* Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981).
* Reagan, Ronald (January 20, 1981).
* Light, Paul Charles (1993). ''Monitoring Government: Inspectors General and the Search for Accountability.'' Washington, D.C.: ]. ISBN 0815752563, pp. 102, 103:<blockquote>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.<br /><br />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."</blockquote>
* Weisman, Steven R. (January 22, 1981). '']'' p. A1:<blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.</blockquote>
* Pear, Robert (February 3, 1981). '']'' p. B14:<blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</blockquote>

=== What would Bush do? ===
==== Luise S. Jordan, 1st CNCS IG (1994–2002) ====
* Clinton, William J. (July 1, 1994). Luise S. Jordan to be CNCS IG
* Clinton, William J. (August 14, 1994). Luise S. Jordan to be CNCS IG
* U.S. House Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff (January 7, 2005)., p. 19. Luise S. Jordan
* Walsh, Edward. (April 11, 2002). '']'', p. A21:<blockquote>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Replacements for Jordan and Gross were named quickly, indicating that the process of replacing them was well underway before the Valentine's Day meetings.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."</blockquote>

==== J. Russell George, 2nd CNCS IG (2002–2004), 2nd TIGTA (2004– ) ====
* Bush, George W. (February 26, 2002). J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (February 27, 2002). J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (April 9, 2002). J. Russell George to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (November 19, 2003). J. Russell George to be TIGTA
* Bush, George W. (November 19, 2003). J. Russell George to be TIGTA
* Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) (November 19, 2006).
* U.S. House Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff (January 7, 2005)., p. 14. J. Russell George
* U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (July 7, 2004) Washington, D.C.: ], p. 55:<blockquote>Published writings: "Why Blacks Should Vote for Bush," published on a web site directed towards African-American professionals, October 2000.</blockquote>
* Bush, George W. (October 8, 2004). Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (October 8, 2004). Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (January 24, 2005). Edward L. Flippen to be CNCS IG
* Bush, George W. (December 13, 2005). 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):<blockquote>An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.<br />The President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to both Houses of Congress.</blockquote>
* Cooper, Jim; et al. (February 8, 2007). H.R.928 Improving Government Accountability Act, revise section 3(b):<blockquote>An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.<br />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.<br />An Inspector General may be removed from office prior to the expiration of his or her term only on any of the following grounds:<br />(1) Permanent incapacity.<br />(2) Inefficiency.<br />(3) Neglect of duty.<br />(4) Malfeasance.<br />(5) Conviction of a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.<br />(6) Knowing violation of a law, rule, or regulation.<br />(7) Gross mismanagement.<br />(8) Gross waste of funds.<br />(9) Abuse of authority.</blockquote>
* Bush, George W. (October 1, 2007).
* Barr, Stephen (October 2, 2007). '']'', 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):<blockquote>An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.<br />If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment,<br />the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress,<br />not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.</blockquote>
* 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):<blockquote>Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.</blockquote>
* 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). '']'', 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):<blockquote>An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President.<br />If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment,<br />the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress,<br />not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.<br />Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.</blockquote>
] (]) 12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

===Better context: Did Obama lie, or did more than 100 prominent, bipartisian people lie?===
In June, 2009, President ] fired Walpin, after Walpin accused ] mayor ] and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of ] funding to pay for school-board political activities. <ref>, Associated Press, June 12, 2009</ref> Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007.<ref>, Associated Press, June 15, 2009</ref> 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."<ref>, Politico, June 17, 2009</ref> 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.<ref>, thehill.com, June 24, 2009</ref> The letter can be read . ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]s, ]s and ]s alleged the firing was politically motivated, as it occurred after Walpin's investigation of St. HOPE Academy founder and former CEO—] mayor ]—an Obama supporter, for misuse of AmeriCorps funds. ref {{cite news |author=Lillis, Ryan; Gutierrez, Melody |date=June 16, 2009 |title=Beltway bloggers abuzz over Johnson, investigator's firing |work=] |page=A1 |url=http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1949795.html |accessdate=2009-06-26}} /ref

] (]) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:10, 5 February 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
Archiving icon
Archives 
/Archive 1

NPOV tag

The article violates BLP and NPOV by failing to mention Kevin Johnson, Walpin's side of the story in his firing, the Congressional demands for investigation into Walpin's firing, and the reasoning behind the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, all of which lead to an unfair assessment of Walpin. THF (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, giving weight to a faux controversy in a biographical article is what would stray into undue territory. This has been hashed and rehashed a million times over, and is a pet obsession of a prolific sockmaster, Grundle2600. The archives above will show extensive conversation on the matter. Tarc (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Why the ad hominem? I'm not Grundle2600. I didn't participate in the earlier discussion. Right now, this article borders on libelous. How hard is it to have a single sentence acknowledging that the firing was controversial, and Walpin's side of the story? It's not like there aren't multiple RS discussing it. You could make the section shorter and still more balanced and convey more accurate information than it does now. THF (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you were Grundle (though of course I checked to see if you were a new user, as your name was unfamiliar), but you are echoing an edit that he has sought for a long time, which has been soundly rejected by a consensus in the past. Hence the "check the archives" pointer. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm making a new argument, and I further note that the recent elections have changed the notability of the issue--nothing in the archive reflects recent November 2010 press coverage. Reduce the section to four or five sentences: (paraphrasing) 1) Walpin was appointed to the IG position by Bush, and dismissed by Obama. 2) Walpin claimed that the firing was politically motivated because of his investigation of Kevin Johnson; Republicans called for an investigation, and have stated that one will take place in 2011; the Obama administration denied any wrongdoing. 3) An investigation of a complaint by the US attorney against Walpin that the Obama administration cited as a reason for the dismissal cleared Walpin of any wrongdoing. 4) Walpin sued over his dismissal, and a district court ruled that the law did not permit judicial review of the executive decision.

I fail to see why any of that is problematic: it's more concise, it's more neutral, it's more fair to Walpin, it conveys more information, and it more accurately conveys what the cited secondary sources (and more recent secondary sources from November 2010) say. THF (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Further NPOV problem: UNDUE

Walpin was a prominent litigator for decades who received nationwide press coverage, but the majority of the article is about the Obama administration's smear of Walpin (without fairly indicating that it was a smear). THF (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gerald Walpin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerald Walpin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerald Walpin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Gerald Walpin: Difference between revisions Add topic