Talk:Dismissal of Sally Yates

Naming

I don't think one person being fired is considered a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.227.124 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your name. And yes, Seems a bit premature | MK17b | (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And not sure three tweets count as great sourcing. | MK17b | (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Give the article 24 hours. If Yates is still the only one who's been fired then, I will have no problem whatsoever with the deletion. --Varavour (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Issued deletion proposal. It's not like this is a big deal, she wasn't even a "full" cabinet member, but merely acting. So unless there are multiple firings to follow suit, this article should be deleted. --User:Tscherpownik (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Ah, Varavour said the same thing. Fully agree to his opinion. Tscherpownik (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a play on Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Definitely premature, though. Dustin (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon administration was also the firing of just one person.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

We now have our second casualty: Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale (Source). --Varavour (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN is also now using the term "Saturday Night Massacre". --Varavour (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Varavour: - I think you meant "Monday" above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Senator Chuck Schumer used the term "Monday Night Massacre" in his remarks on the Senate floor on 1/30/17.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted. Not every term deserves it's own wiki article. | MK17b | (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree, we don't need a new article for every media headline. Especially when this person was an acting official that would've been replaced anyway, and the President did what was within his power. 50.88.240.59 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A handful of left-wing commentators attempting to force a name onto a relatively insignificant event is not a valid reason to create a Wikipedia page for said event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.196.77 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes (~) | MK17b | (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Page is worth keeping, and I suspect if taken to AfD it would end as a snow keep. I strongly support a rename to something like "Sally Yates firing incident". It'll take years to determine if the current name sticks. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony, the page should be renamed to something more neutral like "Sally Yates firing incident" as clearly the current name doesn't yet have cultural cachet. 70.209.196.77 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Not sure if we need a rename either, "Monday Night Massacre" is already what plenty of people are referring to it, it's a trending hashtag on Twitter. Ashvio (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Twitter trends aren't how we decide the name of a historical event. Schuemer called it this and most of the RS are just quoting him. He's the de facto leader of the opposition who is known for being good with PR. He's not exactly a neutral source. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Security

Should we lock this? Seems like it's attracting a bit of vandalism

Not really, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:280D:7D00:698B:DEA1:D48B:4D78 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

There was a statement about Ragsdale staying on as deputy director, which was sourced to a HuffPo article which didn't actually say that. I removed the statement as it was unsupported and another editor had already questioned it. Does that resolve the npov dispute? Bradv 05:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The NPOV dispute is over the name of the page itself. The page should either be renamed to something neutral like "Sally Yates firing incident" or the content should be moved to the Sally Yates page. 70.209.196.77 (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But this isn't just about Yates, and the name of the article is well-sourced. In any case, if you feel strongly you can take it to AFD, but this really isn't about NPOV. Bradv 05:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the article is based on a few tweets from far-left commentators, and article(s) about those tweets. The fact that that violates NPOV rules is self-evident. 70.209.196.77 (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

LA Times, CNN, and MSNBC. Those are about as reliable as you can get, and they are all referenced in the article. Bradv 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Some observations and fixes: 1) the sourcing of the demotion to deputy director is there now, from WaPost. 2) The term is not just from "a few tweets" from far-left folks. See the references. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fuzheado, is there a WaPo article using that title as a title and not reporting that it's being used on Twitter or by the Senate minority leader? CNN is an opinion piece. LA Times is reporting that the term is being used and giving context. MSNBC is liberal Fox, so it doesn't help with the NPOV argument. Discussing this as a name that's been used is fine in the article, but I'm not convinced it should be the name. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more: ITV, Politico, Common Dreams. Bradv 06:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And most notably, CNN. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

CNN front page at 2017-01-30_at_11_23_14_PM

The CNN piece is opinion. To be frank I don't think someone like Fuzheado who has an extensive history of editing anti-Trump Wikipedia pages should be making the determination that this article doesn't violate NPOV rules. 70.209.196.77 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, headlines of news organizations are not "opinion" pieces. Unless you can provide any basis for any other real NPOV arguments, the NPOV tag will be removed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Politico is just reporting on its use by the minority leader, but ITV with MSNBC and the LA Times is enough for me. On their own each is a very weak source but together with all the prominent opinion piece tips it for me. Thanks Bradv TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly the right name for the article, per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no NPOV issue with the title, so the tag needs to be removed. There may be a case to merge this article into Sally Yates, but let's wait a few days for the dust to settle. Either way, that's not an NPOV issue. Bradv 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove the tag if someone hasn't already. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag, but then PLONK, someone went and nominated it for deletion with no discussion here. Sigh. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Some more notable sources: Roll Call and Fortune -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete So far only the liberal media outlets are referring to one person getting canned as a "massacre." Three tweets from left-wing reporters, a CNN link (gave Secretary Clinton debate questions in advance and parent company Time Warner was Clinton's 7th largest financial backer, etc.), and an MSNBC link (put a stop to negative Hillary coverage after Hillary campaign complained, hosted a private party for Clinton's campaign director, etc.)[1][2][3]. So yeah, I'd say parroting the perspectives of loyal supporters of Hillary Clinton is aggressively POV. The existence of this page is embarrassing. 2602:306:3325:600:6904:992A:E90:453 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And Chuck Schumer using the term on the Senate floor. The evidence is pretty clear and substantial. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How long before our beloved Leader Herr von Trump tweets that all Wikipedians supporting this Fake News that fails to conform to the true Alternative Facts must immediately be waterboarded in Gitmo? (And how long before this stops being just a joke?) Tlhslobus (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If the article is renamed, that would be nothing short of weaponising WP:NPOV to instead defy custom regarding WP:CENSORSHIP and would be an egregious violation of WP:COMMONNAME. The slandering of credible sources that more than meet WP:RELIABLE as partisan, I think, suggests quite clearly the intent behind any proposed name change. If that occurs there's no point having the article at all; it would neuter its content into meaninglessness. --Varavour (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd give the retitling (really more of a merge, the current title should be kept around even if it's just as a redirect) question some more time. The news media is still changing its take on the story. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a POV dispute, but a disagreement over the name of the article. We should have a rename straw poll. For now, that tag probably isn't accurate as to what is actually being disputed. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Protect this page

This page is attracting a lot of vandalism. It needs to be protected.

Not quite yet, as it's manageable. But it may be necessary in the future. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was the page protected? 70.209.196.77 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This page needed the protection from people like you. You are biased, whoever you are from Fontana California. The facts show that the mainstream is calling it "Monday Night Massacre. Just because it may seem anti-Trump does not mean that it is purposely skewed to be that way. We are just saying what happened. No alternative facts here. Facts are facts. We need to protect the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

restore info please

I'm not sure whether this was vandalism, but it removed relevant sourced info and left an ungrammatical sentence fragment that's still in the article. The info should be restored, though the wording could possibly be adjusted for neutrality. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

Provide citation that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was "tearful" or remove this attribute. "tearful" is not neutral language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.68.50 (talk • contribs) 

Done Removed the word "tearful" as that was not neutral and was not supported by the source cited. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't take a tearful US Senator too seriously given their tropism for TV cameras, but this about tears in the State Dept. might be worth using. Disclosure: I only skimmed it. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post piece mentioned this article

FYI, the Washington Post had a piece about the term, and mentioned the creation of this Wikipedia article. [4] -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"critics branding it the “Monday Night Massacre.”" | MK17b | (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a more comprehensive read, similar to the conclusions we have above. Washington Post: ‘Monday Night Massacre’ sure is a catchy name. The media isn’t sure whether to use it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure. And the Saturday Night Massacre was so named by Nixon's critics. What's your point? Bradv 16:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's well known and established as the MNN now, regardless of whether it was initially branded so by critics. You can't expect neutrality in the provenance of names, especially on provocative issues. JesseRafe (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This article should either be merged to Sally Yates or renamed Firings of ...

The current title is inappropriate WP:POVNAMING: "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. " Saturday Night Massacre is an OK title for Nixon's firings because it is the common name used by RSs across the political spectrum for decades. Even the WashPo article that is being used as main support for this article says in the headline and body that only some media outlets are using it, and it is being criticised. It is by no means the WP:COMMONNAME https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/monday-night-massacre-sure-is-a-catchy-name-the-media-isnt-sure-whether-to-use-it/ NPalgan2 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

At Talk:Sally Yates there is a discussion about merging it to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - do we usually host the merge discussion at the target or source of a merge? There obviously needs to be a Sally Yates article whatever the outcome of this discussion. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The merge discussion is usually hosted at the target page. That isn't a rule but it is the usual practice. I believe the reason is that if the articles are merged, this will become a redirect, so that this talk page will be kind of "off the radar" as the talk page of a redirect - whereas the other talk page will remain attached to an active article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is fair to say that this event is, and will be in the future, perceived as a significant historical moment. That is to say, that the event itself has scope beyond Ms. Yates herself. It sets a precedent that has few peers in history (i.e. the flagrant insubordination of high-ranking official and the termination so rapidly on such a politically charged matter). Therefore preserving it as its own article is warranted. Burying it in the Yates article is not justified. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Current FBI director and then-Acting AG James Comey's visit to the hospitalized incumbent AG John Ashcroft might be comparable.[5] 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree (though, of course, we are getting into subjective judgements here). The hospital visit incident was notable but I don't think it anywhere near rises to the historical, precedent-setting nature of this event. Though the hospital event did have a showdown with the President, it did not involve this level of public insubordination and there was no same-day termination of a high-level official (and it did not occur within the first couple of weeks of a new administration).

It will take time to determine what the media, political experts, and historians ultimately judge. Right now we just have to make a judgement based on the current coverage, which, at least to an extent, seems to consider this incident history-making. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this is absurdly partisan. For the record, it is not up to encyclopedia editors to determine what is and isn't historically significant. Suggesting that it "will be" is purely a reflection of your personal feelings on this topic, not of reality. Until historians determine it to be a watershed moment in the history of America, which I personally think is ridiculous, then this is nothing more than Sally Yates getting canned for not doing her job as legally dictated. That isn't a personal view: that is literally what happened. Therefore this article is a partisan embarrassment and should be merged accordingly with the individual it relates to. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

While the merge discussion is underway, this article should be renamed "Firings of Sally Yates and Thomas Homan"

According to the WashPo article: "'Monday Night Massacre' sure is a catchy name. The media isn't sure whether to use it." MNM is *a* common name, but not *THE* common name and it is disputed. This article should have a neutral name unless MNM is very well established, which it is not. As things stand, we have the absurd situation that there are separate articles on Yates, Homan, a term used to describe their firings, but not an article on their firings. As 95% of the coverage has been on Yates, the best solution is to merge to Yates, but until that is done this article have a neutral title. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Saturday Night Massacre a neutral title, or would you move that too? Bradv 19:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

See the section above. SNM has become by far the most common name over a long period of time. MNM has not. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an impossible standard, to use the passage of time as a barometer when one is 40 years old and the other is 40 hours you are obviously going to get different results. JesseRafe (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not claiming a standard of saying we have to wait 40 years, - I'm saying that if MNM was being used as commonly and universally as SNM was ever since that Saturday night, there'd be a case for the current title. But the only RS we have discussing the use of the name (WashPo) basically says that some people are calling it that, but many others are not calling it that or disputing the comparison. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a good name. Thomas Homan was not fired, in fact he was promoted. His boss, Daniel Ragsdale, was not fired either; he was demoted. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Argh, you're right I meant "Firings of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale" - maybe dismissal is better as Ragsdale was only demoted, but he was still fired from the acting position.) NPalgan2 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• See the argumentation above. While I'm not overly opposed to a rename, I do think the preponderance of the sources suggests this name for now, and as I expressed at the other page re: a full merge, the best result someone arguing for a move could likely hope for is no consensus to move since you are so close to the event itself. I would be very open to a discussion in the future about the name, but there are enough sources now for me to feel comfortable with the name as it stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Based on the coverage in Fortune I don't think the term is currently partisan, even if it started that way. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Observation: The name "Monday Night Massacre" is not an obscure term. It has established itself as the popular name for what occurred, e.g.

• Fortune: Trump's 'Monday Night Massacre'
• LA Times: Why people are calling the acting attorney general's firing the 'Monday Night Massacre'
• The Real Victims of Trump's “Monday Night Massacre”
• CNN: Monday Night Massacre is a wake-up call to Senate Democrats
• USA Today: For some, Sally Yates' firing resembles Saturday Night Massacre (this article actually states that MNM has become a major Twitter topic)

Granted, maybe a few weeks from now the media will have more consensus on a different way to describe it. But I would argue for now it is how a lot of people know it. Even to the extent there are outlets that are criticizing the name, those criticisms themselves demonstrate the notability of the name. Therefore it is reasonable to keep this name for now.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• MC, a few media outlets are calling it that. They also have the tendency to suffix every scandal major and minor with "-gate", and in modern times, greatly blow things out of proportion in the quest for clicks and ratings. If Wikipedia reflected the media climate of every political event rather than the reality, it would be leagues less accurate and frankly more obnoxious to read. This article should be renamed, and "Monday Night Massacre" should only be mentioned in a sentence explaining it's by critics and the media. Actually, this article shouldn't even exist at all, but if the editors here so determine that this is indeed the biggest political event of the 21st century thusfar, it should at least have an accurate and nonpartisan title. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Preposterous

This is pure hysteria created by Trump critics. Firing someone for not doing their job is considered a massacre? To compare this to the Saturday Night Massacre is completely ridiculous. The individuals fired by Nixon were refusing to cover up a crime. There's nothing illegal or criminal about the lawful executive order that she was refusing to uphold.

Thismightbezach (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum, this is not an attack orchestrated by a cabal of anti-Trump Wikipedia editors, but a neutral reporting of what happened using the event's WP:COMMONNAME. Discussions about the fact that was objectively plenty illegal about the EO she refused to uphold don't have a place here. JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what the firing was about. The papers said she "refused to defend" the EO, but if that meant defend in court I thought that would be done by the Solicitor General's office, rather than the AG's. If it meant telling the border agents to keep detaining people while the court stays were in force, that sounds like she was supposed to ignore a court order, which puts Boente in the same situation now. And I'd have expected that to be a one-way ticket to impeachmentville, but what do I know. Some clarification in the article would be appreciated. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of your political feelings, yes, having an entire article dedicated to the firing of one government employee is absurd. The comparisons to Nixon are totally devoid of reason or merit. Nixon fired multiple people, hence the term "massacre". It isn't a massacre if only ONE person is involved. Further, the motive for the firing is completely different. Nixon was trying to protect himself in the final days of Watergate, Trump fired an employee who refused to enforce a lawful order that got a lot of people riled up. This article should be merged with Sally Yates immediately, it's existence is a partisan embarrassment. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not true, Nixon ordered the firing of one person and quit in protest to this overreach of the executive's powers. That is akin to this instance of one person protesting an overreach of the executive's powers and thus being fired. "Three people" isn't a "massacre" either if you're trying to be literal so that's a silly point. JesseRafe (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will notice there are two people involved. Wikipedia is about notability, verifiability and sourcing. At the moment, that term has been in the zeitgeist, having been used by media outlets, politicians (Charles Schumer), commentators, and others. You are free to analyze the situation, but that's not changing the fundamentals of whether this article should exist. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Ain515 First sentence at the time: "The Monday Night Massacre is a term used to refer to U.S President Donald Trump's dismissal of two federal officials on January 30, 2017 by some political commentators and media outlets,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] but which others did not use or disputed.[9][10][11][12]". Some editors are saying that "but which others did not use or disputed" should not be there, but WP:BALANCE says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Sources 9-12 disagree or note disagreement with the MNM usage, so the second clause is needed. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry the formatting of the above is so confusing to me I cannot make sense of it. Can you re-try? @NPalgan2: -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Improved it, hopefully clear now. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

The article says that opinion was split along party lines. It should be noted that Alan Dershowitz believes Yates was wrong to do what she did. This was in an opinion piece published by The Hill and on MSN.