A fact from 2020 dismissal of inspectors general appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2020 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that U.S. president Donald Trump dismissed five inspectors general in the space of six weeks? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 dismissal of inspectors general.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Donald Trump Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply