Talk:U.S. President Barack Obama fires Inspector General Gerald Walpin amid controversy

Source diversity

I'll add a few more sources. Glenn beck is mentioned as that is where Inspector Walpin was interviewed. --WNewsReporter (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scandal?

Is 'scandal' being used correctly here? I have heard almost nothing about this on mainstream media. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest reading w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Its up for deletion, although looking like a keep, that doesn't mean its news. I don't see a 'scandal' other than the select media groups making it into one. I simply just think the use of scandal in this case is POV...not to mention 'erupts'... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This title does smack of sensationalism, true. Something like U.S. President Barack Obama fires Inspector General Gerald Walpin amid controversy might be better. But I'm pointing you to the deletion discussion, not the article that is up for deletion. There are strong indicators in that discussion that, yes, this firing is a news event. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the event itself is news, but people get fired all the time. usually getting fired implies that you did something wrong or against company policy to begin with. if that is a scandal, then I have been a victim of several. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No sources for information and analysis given

I've read all of the sources cited, and the content of the article describing "the attentive and alert behavior of Mr Walpin" is not supported by any of them. At the very best, this comes from a self-serving statment by the person xyrself saying "look at my behaviour". So what is the source that actually has looked at this behaviour, and analysed it in this fashion? None of the ones given so far state their having done so. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)`

• The 'scandal' seems to be Fox hyping this - business as usual for the Murdoch empire. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You're in the wrong section. You want the one above. You haven't answered my question. Unless I can find a source, or one is presented by the original author of the content (or indeed someone else) in response to this question, I'm going to take that content out. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article fails to note Walpin's admission to Politico.com that he may have been less than fully functional at the May 20 meeting cited by the Obama administration. From the Politico article [1]:

'Walpin said he did recall a board meeting where he became frustrated over “constant interruption…consistently breaking up my organization.” Asked about the May 20 session, Walpin said, “It’s certainly possible at that meeting I had a bug and was tired. I can’t remember right now…All I can say is this is a weak reed to now be relying on.” ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.38 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for "Mr."; Wikinews doesn't do this

Wikinews doesn't use titles like that: Mr. Obama, Ms. Bush, Mrs. Cheney, etc. Calebrw (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Done. Calebrw (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 836251 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm going to rename it per talk and remove the end statement (couldn't find it in the sources) but otherwise no problems and very interesting! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 836251 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm going to rename it per talk and remove the end statement (couldn't find it in the sources) but otherwise no problems and very interesting! The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Hmmm

Thought I'd draw everyone's attention to the comments section-Comments:U.S._President_Barack_Obama_fires_Inspector_General_Gerald_Walpin_amid_controversy Dotty••|☎ 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that it reflects a genuine commitment to the NPOV to state that the losing side in an election does not matter. I recommend reading Talk:Former U.S. Inspector General Gerald Walpin requests congressional hearings on his firing; conservatives rally in support. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)