Talk:2020 dismissal of inspectors general

Please feel free to improve this article

This article is incomplete. For one thing, it needs a Reactions section. And it needs more detail in the individual sections about people who were dismissed. Please feel free to add to and improve this article. Thank you. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, nice work. You should tag this with WP:WPUS50k – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thanks, but it wouldn't qualify, would it? This is not an expansion of a stub; I wrote it from scratch over the last couple of days. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people (myself included) have been logging new creations. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OIC. I'm not familiar with that contest; I'll have to look into it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it says right up front "Improve/create any article related to the United States." So I guess "create" counts. Just May through July, and just related to the U.S., right? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm wondering if this should be at 2020 dismissals of inspectors general? It's several incidents over several weeks. (I just don't want it to end up being moved while it's on the MP in a couple days.) —valereee (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, valereee. "inspectors general" already makes it plural, but maybe "dismissals" should be plural too. On the other hand I don't think I can change the title (or anything else about it) while the DYK is already in the queue; any kind of change at that point tends to cause problems. I think I will leave it alone and maybe change it after the DYK is past. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Section to include in 1978 IG Act page?

Thinking that a section from this article might be relevant to include by reference (I forget the wiki term for that - some template goofiness?) within original 1978 AG Act page, such as the proposed IG Independence Act modifications, but perhaps also some of the newspaper-of-record editorial board assessments. Use Reactions section and/or other(s)?

Now wondering if any other changes have been made to IG Act since 2008 update that provided CIGIE. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the editorial commentary here. No, we wouldn't WP:transclude anything, but it's perfectly OK to copy/paste material from one Wikipedia article to another - with attribution in the edit summary. However, I think we shouldn't add the proposed IG Independence Act to the other article, since at this point it's just a proposal. Maybe if it passes the House, but maybe not even then. Its chance of actually getting passed into law is unfortunately close to zero. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that President Donald Trump dismissed five Inspectors General in the space of six weeks? Source: CBS News: In a span of six weeks, Mr. Trump has removed five officials from posts leading their respective agencies' inspector general offices
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Independence Lake (California)

Moved to mainspace by MelanieN (talk). Self-nominated at 18:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I would suggest "dismissed" instead of "fired" as it is a bit less emotive. buidhe 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Buidhe, good idea. And it relates better to the title of the article. I will make the change. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice article! buidhe 04:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Context and history

I just came across this article while perusing today's DYKs. From the other side of the Atlantic, it seems too journalistic in its focus on the current administration and the political reactions. To get some historical perspective, I made a quick browse of Google Books and found some commentary such as this, which indicates that President Reagan made a mass purge of 14 IGs back in 1980. I'm not familiar with the details but suppose that they were being treated as political appointees rather than long-term civil servants. The article seems to need more background and cross-linking to such cases to provide some historical context for current events. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that was before the Act was established and in fact was the purge that inspired the act. Since then there has been only one dismissal as far as I know. But I will research and possibly add some background. Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Previously in 1981, Ronald Reagan fired 16 inspector generals when he became president, with his administration explaining that Reagan intended to hire his own people. After Congress objected, Reagan rehired 5 of the fired inspector generals. In 1989, George H. W. Bush also attempted to dismiss all the inspector generals upon becoming president, but after the inspector generals and Congress objected, Bush relented. In 2009, President Barack Obama dismissed Corporation for National and Community Service inspector general Gerald Walpin citing a lack of confidence in him. After Congress objected to the lack of explanation, the Obama administration cited that Walpin had shown "troubling and inappropriate conduct", and pointed to an incident that year where Walpin was "disoriented" during a board meeting of the Corporation, which led to the board asking for Walpin's dismissal. Walpin sued for a reinstatement, but the courts ruled against Walpin.

@MelanieN and Andrew Davidson: - added and sourced to [1] starship.paint (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)