Talk:Dismissal of Sally Yates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming[edit]

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)[reply]

Please sign your name. And yes, Seems a bit premature | MK17b | (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And not sure three tweets count as great sourcing. | MK17b | (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edit: Ah, Varavour said the same thing. Fully agree to his opinion. Tscherpownik (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a play on Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Definitely premature, though. Dustin (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon administration was also the firing of just one person.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

CNN is also now using the term "Saturday Night Massacre". [1] --Varavour (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Varavour: - I think you meant "Monday" above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think this article should be deleted. Not every term deserves it's own wiki article. | MK17b | (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Perez, Evan; Jeremy, Diamond (31 January 2017). "MONDAY NIGHT MASSACRE: TRUMP FIRES ACTING AG". CNN. Retrieved 31 January 2017.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This is what I call a "drama queen" addition to Wikipedia. If you want to destroy Wikipedia, this is a great way to do it. Turn it into graffiti on a bathroom wall for someone who has issues with Trump. The article in the context of history is insignificant. At minimum it should be brought under all actions Trump has taken. I think CNN invented the name and it doesn't even remotely compare with what Nixon did. Ridiculous.Ssybesma (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Security[edit]

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)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A few more: ITV, Politico, Common Dreams. Bradv 06:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And most notably, CNN. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed. I'll remove the tag if someone hasn't already. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some more notable sources: Roll Call and Fortune -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Protect this page[edit]

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

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)[reply]

restore info please[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Washington Post piece mentioned this article[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Closed as no consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

At Talk:Sally Yates there is a discussion about merging it to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disagree with this line of thinking. If it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is historically significant at all, then Wikipedia should never cover current events period. Instead Wikipedia should give any even a few years to see how experts and historians write about it. Granted there is an argument to made for such an approach but this is NOT how WP currently operates. It would be a radical change of policy to do so. If WP is going to continue to put in articles about current events then judgments must be made based on media coverage (since books and scholarly articles are not available yet). This particular topic is right on the edge but there are certainly less notable events that have articles in WP.
As to whether the name is appropriate or not, there is a fine line to be walked, obviously. But, to be frank, if you accept that this topic is notable, the reason it is notable is because of the belief by some that the firing was something well out of established norms, something the name represents at the expense of obviously being very biased. Though WP should attempt to avoid bias, it should not do so by trying to invent names where a common one already exists. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Preposterous[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Alan Dershowitz[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.255.232 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What party does Alan Dershowitz represent? | MK17b | (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "split along party lines" is an accurate assessment, at least that's not what the article says. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Bernstein and Alan Dershowitz are Democrats. Richard Tofel and Michael Gerhardt quoted here are too (though none of them are political officeholders): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/31/sally-yates-is-now-a-martyr-for-the-anti-trump-movement-but-legally-speaking-its-more-complicated/ So 'along party lines' is not accurate. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's party lines either. Ken White (Popehat) is no admirer of Trump but Popehat.com (his legal blog) has an article critical of Yates that went up a day or two ago. Has Sen. Sessions said anything? There might be an irony because of his questions during Yates' confirmation hearings. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph needs to avoid hedging[edit]

The lead paragraph currently looks like this:

On January 30, 2017, U.S President Donald Trump dismissed Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and demoted and replaced Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Daniel Ragsdale. The move was labeled a Monday Night Massacre by a number of politicians, political commentators and news reports, while the use of the term was questioned by others. The name alludes to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, during the Watergate scandal, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned after refusing to carry out President Richard Nixon's order to dismiss special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

This wording has been used in an attempt to appease various factions but really violates MOS in more than one way and is a bit confusing. If this article is going to exist, it should not attempt to apologize for itself which is what this paragraph is attempting to do. If the term "Monday Night Massacre" is a legitimate name, then it should not be treated with doubt from the beginning. And the source of the name is a secondary issue that should not be discussed in the first paragraph. Those two questions can be discussed but the quality of the article should not be diluted to appease factions that want to delete the article (i.e. keep or delete it but don't water it down). I would recommend something more like the following:

The Monday Night Massacre was an event in U.S. politics on January 30, 2017 in which President Donald Trump dismissed Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and demoted and replaced Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Daniel Ragsdale following allegations of politically motivated insubordination. President Trump had signed, on January 27, an executive order restricting entry of nationals from specific countries and Yates had subsequently ordered the Justice Department not to defend this order. The President's signing of the order, Yates refusal to cooperate, and the subsequent termination and demotion, generated intense media coverage and broad public discussion. The name Monday Night Massacre is an allusion to the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, during the Watergate scandal, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned after refusing to carry out President Richard Nixon's order to dismiss special prosecutor Archibald Cox. The label was first used by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and soon picked up by various media outlets and the public, though the term has been heavily criticized by many both in the media and in government.

--MC

I like MC's version above. It's better organized than what's in the article. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement on the lede now in the article. A couple of suggestions: in the first sentence I would remove "following allegations of politically motivated insubordination" because that does not apply to Ragsdale, and the circumstances of Yates' dismissal are explained in the following sentences. in the final sentence, it should say "the label "Monday Night Massacre" was first used by ", otherwise it sounds as if you are still talking about Saturday Night Massacre. Also, before we replace the existing lede, some of the citations in the lede (not all, there are way too many) should be cited in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV title[edit]

User:FuzheadoThe reason that many editors are citing for the merge/rename proposal is that MNM is a NPOV title, disputed by many sources. While the merge proposal is active, the POV title tag needs to stay. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag has nothing to do with POV. This is clearly a dispute over the article title and not any issue with POV in the article. I think this may be misuse of the POV tag. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Start a rename discussion here instead. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested rename in two separate new sections above. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to not edit war with other users. This article is under 1RR. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I readded the POV-title tag once after it was removed. That's not edit warring. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any challenged edits must be removed and taken to the talk page. Your edit has been challenged, so remove the tag, then continue discussion here. You just verified this is an article renaming issue, which is not necessarily a POV dispute. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this article is under 1RR and you have reverted twice. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realise needed consensus on talk page for that edit and I thought 1RR only applied to reverts on the same topic. I have selfreverted the POV-title tag. However, I would argue that the POV-title tag is needed and the article should be renamed/merged. Many sources challenging the MNM title are cited in this article's lead. I have argued for renaming above. Other editors at the Sally Yates talk page have called MNM a NPOV and unjustified title. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for doing this. I would suggest you use the article rename template and ask for closure after its discussed.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Firstly, some observations: there were good common name arguments both in favour of the "Monday Night Massacre" title and in opposition to it; the analysis of sources by several users was impressive and useful to read; a slight majority of participants ended up being in favour of the move. Ultimately what swayed my assessment of the consensus were the NPOV concerns, a core part of the article titles policy. In particular, the arguments that many news sources (on both sides of the political spectrum) felt the MNM name to be unfair or inaccurate, and that NPOVNAME explicitly mentions avoiding "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". This last point was actually exemplified on a smaller scale in this very discussion, with the vast majority of opposers commenting early in the piece and vice versa for the supporters.

I would recommend that the title of this article be revisited in 6–12 months when we can more ably assess whether the MNM title has stood the test of time, or whether it was only this news cycle where the term was regularly used to refer to the dismissals. It would also be useful around that timeframe (but not in the same discussion) to decide whether Daniel Ragsdale should be included in the title – there were some queries about that in the discussion, but not enough one way or the other to form a consensus on it. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Monday Night Massacre → Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale – Describing this incident as the Monday Night Massacre is highly disputed (see sources cited in lead). Current title is neither NPOV nor used so often that we should accept a POV title NPalgan2 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to quote WP:COMMONNAME: "Neutrality is also considered ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. ...Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." I would argue that the cites in the lead show clearly that MNM has not and shows no sign of becoming a highly common NPOV name like Saturday Night Massacre or Boston Massacre. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But in this circumstance there is no alternative common name, the proposed move is not a "common name" but a descriptive sentence fragment that, yes, will get Google hits, but not a name. Thus the "when" in the quoted policy above is not triggered. JesseRafe (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most controversies are automatically dubbed Name of politician+gate by some media sources, and there often is not a simple obvious alternative. But defaulting to the NPOV +gate suffix is a bad idea. See Monicagate Travelgate Cattlegate Emailgate, al defaulting to neutral non-gate titles. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unfortunately and thanks to the press, I think most of the sources for this article rely heavily on this term Monday Night Massacre and the use of a different title may not match up with all our sources and coverage. A redirect would prove useful of the proposed title in listing the topic on search engines. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above. WP:COMMONNAME and those that are not using it are making a point not to use it, which is itself an allusion to this name. JesseRafe (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME for now. This is currently the common name, and if the common name changes in the future, it can be renamed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Though it is possible that the MNM name may not stick long term, as of now it does appear to be a widely used description of the event (I would argue the most widely used, though such things are impossible to prove). If a couple of months from now there is evidence that WP:COMMONNAME no longer applies or that a consensus in the media or scholars indicates that the name is too far over the line for WP:NPOVTITLE, then this can be revisited. --MC
Yet more examples:
Some of these critique the name but that still demonstrates its notability (indeed RedState grudgingly acknowledges this is the name used by mainstream media).
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to have neutral titles *unless* there's strong evidence to the contrary, not pick up a few ephemeral headlines and then stick to them like grim death. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful about going down the road of WP:BALL. It is hard to say what people will say about this event months or years from now and how they will refer to it (or even if it might turn out to be considered insignificant after all). At this moment in time evidence from media coverage says this is a significant historical event and that this name is how people largely know it, right or wrong (you can pull up almost any article about it and the name will appear somewhere if not in the article's title). These secondary sources are supposed to be how we make these choices (and mind you, these secondary sources are also documenting that the Twitter has picked up this term like wildfire). --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since this is the common name. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support let me explain why. @Bradv: @JesseRafe: @TonyBallioni: @Octoberwoodland: firstly please see "Monday Night Massacre" in GBooks. I hope those book hits show that MONDAY/TUESDAY/ETC XXXX titles are pretty transient, and not unique. Secondly, please spare a thought for readers outside the USA. Their newspapers are unlikely to cover US stories with tabloid (meaning catchy colloquial) terms but transparent neutral terms. And yet events in the USA affect readers worldwide. Also, thirdly, and this is my own highly subjective comment, in a world where massacres happen for real on Monday night, describing two well paid employees being given generous golden handshakes as a "massacre" is, well.. In the long run this article will end up at Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale anyway. Why not just do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name is widely covered in the medias and that alone is merit of the article's name. Ueutyi (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above. There is no reason to take this matter lightly, courts are almost unanimously overturning this E.O. at the TRO request phase of litigation. This is a remarkable event in a federal court to meet the bar to gain a TRO on a Presidential Order, who is given deference to in court. It needs to be facially unconstitutional and illegal to meet the legal standard of a TRO. Sally Yates was pointing this issue out prior to defending the E.O. in court and stood up to the President and told him that this E.O. was not contestable in court and she would not force her staff to do so. This is the obligation of an Attorney General (acting or otherwise) in the United States of America and she was a 25+ year non-partisan career civil servant before being elevated to Deputy Attorney General by Barack Obama with Senate confirmation where Senator Jeff Sessions (currently nominated for the position she was filling as acting AG) even challenged her whether she would say no to a president asking her to do something she saw as illegal, which she agreed to in the confirmation hearing. This is a very large breach of protocol, when the White House could have easily hired private council to defend the order at the taxpayer's expense as well.Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Monday Night Massacre is not a universally accepted term, and there are currently many sources cited in this article that voice objections to its use, due to its differences from the Saturday Night Massacre. Yes, it has been widely used, but its wide use is possibly limited to one side of the political spectrum. Are pro-Trump/conservative publications and people using the term? If not, it is not neutral. The article should have a section discussing the viewpoints on the appropriateness of the "Monday Night Massacre" name; in fact, this debate is a big part of the event's notability. But it shouldn't be used as the title. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had never heard this term until I saw the article title. No one has offered evidence in support of the claim that it is the Common Name. I don't know whether it's possible to demonstrate it. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Roy, Jessica (January 30, 2017). "Why people are calling the acting attorney general's firing the 'Monday Night Massacre'". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  2. ^ Zelizer, Julian. "Monday night massacre is a wake-up call to Senate Democrats". CNN. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  3. ^ "Monday Night Massacre: Trump fires acting Attorney General". MSNBC. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  4. ^ "Trump's 'Monday Night Massacre': What The Legal Community Is Saying". Fortune. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  5. ^ Bennett, John T. (January 31, 2017). "Questions Abound in Wake of Trump Firing Acting AG". Roll Call. Retrieved January 31, 2017. The reference to President Richard Nixon dovetails with what was being dubbed the "Monday Night Massacre".
  6. ^ Nichols, John (January 31, 2017). "Hashtag #ConstitutionalCrisis". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved January 31, 2017. It took Richard Nixon almost five years to spawn a "Saturday Night Massacre". Donald Trump spawned a "Monday Night Massacre" in just ten days.
  7. ^ Ahmed, Akbar Shahid (January 31, 2017). "Trump's 'Monday Night Massacre' Another Sign Of No Business As Usual". The Huffington Post. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  8. ^ Hawkins, Derek (January 31, 2017). "'Monday night massacre'? After firing of Yates, Nixon's sordid moment has been repurposed for Trump". Washington Post. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  9. ^ Borchers, Callum (January 31, 2017). "'Monday Night Massacre' sure is a catchy name. The media isn't sure whether to use it". Washington Post. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 31, 2017.
  10. ^ Dershowitz, Alan (January 31, 2017). "Sally Yates was wrong and should have resigned". TheHill.
  11. ^ "Watergate Echoes in Yates Firing, but Parallels Are Limited". The New York Times. 31 January 2017.
  12. ^ Blackman, Josh. "Why Trump Had to Fire Sally Yates". POLITICO Magazine.
  13. ^ Wolf, Leon (January 31, 2017). "Commentary: Stop it, liberals. What happened last night was not a 'Monday night massacre'". TheBlaze.
  14. ^ "Not a 'Monday Night Massacre': Our view". USA TODAY. 31 January 2017.
  15. ^ Blake, Aaron. "Sally Yates is now a martyr for the anti-Trump movement. But legally speaking, it's more complicated". Washington Post.
  16. ^ "A Supreme Court Reset and the Monday Night Massacre That Wasn't". Weekly Standard. January 31, 2017.
  17. ^ Kurtz, Howard (February 1, 2017). "Trump's Firing of a Defiant Obama Holdover: Why He's No Richard Nixon". Fox news. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've noticed that few if any of these sources considered the dismissal of Ragsdale to be a part of the "massacre", but I did a little digging and found a reliable one that does.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle (talk • contribs) 17:32, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
References

References

  1. ^ Davis, Benjamin G. (1 February 2017). "Muslim Ban or Otherwise: Should a Bureaucrat Resign in Protest?". JURIST. Retrieved 5 February 2017. With the recent turmoil of the Monday Night Massacre (firing of the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and the firing of the Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale)...
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The relevant policy (WP:NPOVNAME) specifically mentions the term massacre, saying "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre). In such cases, the prevalence of the name... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." No objection to creating redirects from plausible search terms such as Firing of Sally Yates. gobonobo + c 03:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE. Less than one week has passed since this massacre did not happen and there is no evidence that "Monday Night Massacre" has become a proper noun. I just checked six best results ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) of a Google News search (using keyword "yates", picking sources that are likely to accepted as reliable sources, and picking only the most recent results) and none of them mentioned "Monday Night Massacre".
Another option would be going through sources that Steve Quinn and Indy beetle mentioned (here text quoted in {{tq}} or "green text" means that it is my interpretation of what that source uses as a common name) Note that in most cases my comment "no mention of 'Monday Night Massacre'" means that MNM is used in the article title, but not in a sentence". If you think that this is unfair criterion, you should ignore my comment and check the source yourself (which you should do anyway). (edited 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC))
Source-by-source commentary of 18 sources
  1. Los Angeles Times acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates had been fired – this article explains why some people have called the firing "Monday Night Massacre".
  2. CNN quick firing of Yates – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre".
  3. MSNBC Trump fired his acting Attorney General, Sally Yates – no "Monday Night Massacre" mentioned in the 'body'. The talking head calls it "Monday Night Massacre" in the video, but not without explaining what they are referring to.
  4. Fortune Trump's decision to fire Sally Yates – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre".
  5. Roll Call culminating in Yates’ firing – only mention of "Monday Night Massacre" is when it is explained that the incident was "dubbed the 'Monday Night Massacre'".
  6. The Nation – unable to verify as this is a dead link and web.archive.org didn't yield any results either. uses MNM twice: the source actually uses MNM in a sentence after explaining what it is: But Trump’s "Monday Night Massacre" highlights concerns expressed by the ACLU. (edited 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC))
  7. The Huffington Post firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre".
  8. The Washington Post Trump fired acting attorney general Sally Yates – the article explains that critics have branded the incident "Monday Night Massacre" and that it's the title of our article (does this mean that we are not critics) and that's it.
  9. The Washington Post firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates and demotion of Daniel H. Ragsdale – the article explains that some outlets have used "Monday Night Massacre", actually critizes the usage, and even mentions that CNN used phrase, but later revised their graphic.
  10. The Hill Trump fired Yates – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre". Well-known Trump critic Dershowitz argues that Trump did not do "anything even remotely close to President Nixon’s infamous 'Saturday Night Massacre'".
  11. The New York Times Trump fired the acting attorney general – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre".
  12. Politico Yates’ firing – Blackman says that "Democrats are calling it the Monday Night Massacre" and explains why the moniker is poor. Suggests "Monday Night Layoff" instead.
  13. The Blaze Trump’s decision to fire acting Attorney General Sally Yates or Trump’s dismissal of Yates' – mentions that liberals are using "Monday night massacre" and why they should not. That's the only mention.
  14. USA Today Yates firing – only one mention of "Monday Night Massacre" when the editorial board explains that the incident is not "comparable to the infamous 'Saturday Night Massacre' in 1973".
  15. The Washington Post "Yates firing", "Trump's removal of [Yates]" "removal of Yates" – no mention of "Monday Night Massacre".
  16. Weekly Standard Trump promptly fired [Yates] – only mention of "Monday Night Massacre" is in a subtitle. Warren calls the comparison "weak and lazy".
  17. Fox News The firing was dramatic – only mention of "Monday Night Massacre" is when Kurtz says that cable news used that in banners, and opines that "in this particular case, Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon".
  18. JURIST "firing of the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and the firing of the Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale" or "Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale firings" – only one mention of "Monday Night Massacre" and the author immediately explains that it means "firing of the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and the firing of the Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale". Later they call it "Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale firings".
Observations:
  • None of the sources mention "Monday Night Massacre" without explaining what it means.
  • The moniker is not even mentioned in all sources, but in cases where it is, sources are almost unanimous that comparison to "Saturday Night Massacre" is unfair, which strongly suggests that "Monday Night Massacre" is not compatible with WP:NPOVTITLE.
  • Nearly all sources I checked use some sort of variant of "dismissal of Sally Yates". Some say "dismissal", others "firing".
  • 10 out of 18 11 out of 18 sources mention "Monday Night Massacre".
  • 2 out of 10 2 out 11 sources that mention Monday Night Massacre, mention Ragsdale.
Conclusion: "Monday Night Massacre" is not recognizable (in comparison, virtually everybody who has ever heard of Boston massacre recognizes which incident the title is referring to) and for reasons afore, it is absolutely non-neutral per WP:NPOVTITLE. Dismissal of Ragsdale does not fit into definition of "Monday Night Massacre" that most sources use. Proposed name broadly reflects what the reliable sources say. Politrukki (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC); edited 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Politrukki you make some good points, but some of your logic I do not understand. For example, concerning the JURIST source I brought up, you say that because there is only one mention of the term and it is quickly explained away with "the firing of the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and the firing of the Acting ICE Director Daniel Ragsdale" so that it doesn't count. Wouldn't that discount calling the "Saturday Night Massacre" article such? A lot of the sources I find only say "Saturday Night Massacre" once and then explain it way with a phrase such as "the resignation of Ruckelshaus and Richardson and the dismissal of Cox". I don't think we can use a descriptive sentence fragment title on that basis. As for the sources that are saying the comparison to the "Saturday Night Massacre" is unfair, I think they're talking about political context...Many people don't mind calling the Saturday Night Massacre such because Nixon's actions were near-indisputably corrupt and obstructed justice, whereas Trump has fired someone who disobeyed an executive order (and demoted someone else without much explanation) and many commentators find a lack of congruence between the two and choose not to use such a harsh term with such negative connotations. I don't think that has any bearing on the frequency of the usage of the term. And still, I wouldn't consider "Saturday Night Massacre" to be NPOV, but it is proper because of the frequency of the usage. I wonder if there were people who supported Nixon who opposed the use of the term "Saturday Night Massacre" at the time of it's circulation... The real quest here is to find those "Democrats" (and others) that "are calling it the Monday Night Massacre" and count their number. It was a trending topic on Twitter, but we can and should look for places other than criticism or vague secondary source criticism, which I think you're suggesting. For the record, "Monday Night Layoff" is a pretty humorous alternative. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you don't understand and I'll try to explain or further confuse everybody. To be clear, WP:NPOVNAME warns against using trendy slogans and monikers, and instead suggests using more encyclopedic alternatives, and that should be enough, but I'm trying to emphasize that WP:COMMONNAME must not be read selectively: please read the third paragraph!
Sometimes when choosing an article title we have candidates A (e.g. "Monday Night Massacre"), B (e.g. "dismissal of Sally Yates"), C and D. If C and D are similar enough to B, I argue that they should be counted towards B. Sometimes we may have expressions E, F and G that can never become a proper noun (see for example quotes 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 17), but it is debatable whether they should be counted towards B. Sometimes E, F and G can be expressions that don't support neither A, B, C or D. But for example quote 10 says "Trump fired Yates", not that Trump committed Monday Night Massacre, hence I would say that 10 would tend to support B. My observation is that in discussion like this editors usually pay (too much) attention to titles that are easiest to find in a search engine.
If we were debating validity of title "Saturday Night Massacre" today, we should pick the best academic sources, count how many times (assuming no RS had done counting for us) SNM appears in the text. If answer is "many enough", then SNM should be accepted, as we don't have months to debate (actually WP:COMMONNAME says "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources", but there's just no way that that would be feasible if there are tons of sources).
(Re: "only one mention") In your JURIST source MNM we can find at least three expressions that in theory could become proper nouns: MNM, 18a (which would be too long title) and 18b. Your source could have used MNM the second, but it did not. If any source uses a term only once, it's not that common term (I mean that it's not locally prevalent, so to speak), is it? Politrukki (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Politrukki, I agree you make some interesting points and, as I've said, ultimately it is impossible to say definitively what will be a long-term recognizable name for this event. We can only make a judgment now based on the existing coverage and then revisit it later to see what is really sticking. The MNM name has attached itself right or wrong, at least for now. Arguing about whether Ragsdale is always mentioned, I believe is nitpicking (I bet if I looked up "9/11" I would frequently not find the Pentagon mentioned; that really isn't the point). You can argue that the average person is not familiar with the term "Monday Night Massacre" but I'd guess there is a larger number that don't know who Sally Yates is. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Ragsdale is generally not mentioned might suggest that the sources don't agree on the definition or that the sample is not representative – I should add that I didn't pick these 18 sources.
"ultimately it is impossible to say definitively what will be a long-term recognizable name" hits the nail right in the head. In my opinion, at this point, it's way too early to assess prevelance or determine whether MNM has passed the "trendy slogan or moniker" phase (see WP:NPOVNAME).
We could maybe agree that based on these 18 sources, MNM was more or less a thing for one news cycle, but the more recent sources I picked – and I don't mean cherrypicking! (if you don't believe me, you should repeat the Google News experiment I described or design something similar) – indicate that mainstream sources have quickly forgotten "Monday Night Massacre", at least as a moniker. It feels like the headlines have been hijacked by other fictitious massacres! Politrukki (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainly per In ictu oculi. I, like many users of the English language, do not reside in the United States. The proposed new title is neutral and would not get outdated in a few years' time. feminist 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Anyone who does not support the changing of this name needs a lesson in NPOV. The articles cited above are in OPINION pages. If multiple columnists were to call the 2008 US Presidential Election "When the world collapsed", it would not make it a true and non-biased title. The other possible titles mentioned above are neutral and do not take points of view. Referenced or not PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer
  • Support. WP:RECENT applies here. How is it a common name? A lot of news sources just refer it as "Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale dismissed." epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it is inappropriate unless it became a truly common name...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not believe Monday Night Massacre is the common name. I live in the United States, and I read about Sally Yates firing in multiple places, but I have never heard it referred to as the Monday Night Massacre. JDDJS (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The massacre moniker was a transient fad, it did not hold up to reach WP:COMMONNAME status, therefore a neutral and clearer title is more appropriate. Note that most Oppose !votes came during the original news cycle, and all !votes since February 7 support the move. — JFG talk 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In ictu oculi makes a great point about international readers/non-English speakers. Classicwiki (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per the commentary of sources. The editors voting oppose have not made a convincing enough case that it's the common name. Really seem to be forcing it. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - People would overlook what else WP:COMMONNAMES says: even when a name is commonly used, the name would also be ambiguous and/or inaccurate. Such name would be avoided. The current name is no exception. I hope the closer shall closely evaluate the arguments and votes before closing this RM. Alternatively, why not relist? George Ho (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment as shown above, many sources appear to indicate that the current title is the Common Name. There are a large number of sources that use this name and have discussed why people and the press are calling this incident this name. It appears to me that Politrukki's above analysis is not accurate. For example, where they claim it is not in the article - it actually is used. The "commentary" appears to be spinning what the evidence indicates. Here it is prominently used in the article title [12] and that is the point (in this instance).
People are familiar with the name and the audience knows what the topic is. It is the same with this article. Since, massive amounts of reliable sources are using this in the title and/or discussing this in the article then that is the definition of COMMONNAME. This supposed analysis claims it is not in the article (or sometimes "body") this is not correct. Take a look at these - if editors will click on these links they will see for themselves.
This is at variance with the above commentary, as is clearly demonstrated - here, here, and here, it is in the body of this article with an explanation of its usage [13], it is in the Nation magazine, which a small amount of extra effort would have demonstrated [14], and her it is again [15], then the New York Times explains how this is alluded to the "Saturday Night Massacre" - but the claim in the above analysis is there is no connection - yet there really is [16].
And here it is again in Politico, and I think Wikipedia editor's commentary on this one should be discounted [17]... and so on. So no WP:NPOVTITLE is not the correct section on the policy page. But the correct section on that policy page is WP:COMMONNAME. I apologize for not responding sooner. I didn't notice how incorrect that analysis seems to be. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the opinion of one of the above editors these are all opinion pages. But that is just that person's opinion. These sources demonstrate the wide usage and commonality of the current title. The content policy, WP:NPOV, states that we construct articles based on what the sources say. And the sources are saying, and or discussing, this term. So this is in no way in disagreement with policy. I found one source that doesn't use this term in the title or in the article. All the others do. The proof is in the pudding. To the naysayers, please post 17 sources that don't use this term while discussing this very topic - to demonstrate this is not in wide usage. The only sources that have been presented use this current article title. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have supplemented my first post with an a note that I have disqualified some sources because "Monday Night Massacre" only appears in a headline. This reflects the community consensus that headlines are not reliable sources.[18] I kind of understand if you say that this doesn't matter in this case, but if something is used only in a headline, this suggests that this something is merely a trendy moniker and we should use more encyclopedic title per WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC.
Thank for providing undead link to the article in The Nation (I mentioned that I tried to find an archived version, didn't I?). I think this is your best source pro "Monday Night Massacre" so far and by far.
The more recent sources I provided show that cool kids don't use "Monday Night Massacre". Politrukki (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you correctly predicted, I disagree that community consensus has determined that headlines are not useful as a reliable source based on that very small discussion that has been linked to [[19]. The participation in that discussion is sparse, as can be seen. I agree for that one discussion and that one headline - that would not be appropriate. Here however, Monday Night massacre is used in multiples of reliable sources, headlines or body of article. This very different from that discussion.
As for WP:NDESC this title does not reflect an editor's opinion. It reflects wide spread usage. No editor here, in this discussion, invented that title. And WP:NDESC seems to defer to COMMONNAME. I do understand your concern here. But maybe I am so used to seeing such titles on Wikipedia that it is not an issue for me. I used to get upset at some titles and challenge them. And I will if I think there are serious POV issues, and I think it does not in any way reflect reality. I have already discussed NPOVNAME at length below so I won't rehash that here.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note, contrary to the above claims, WP:NPOVNAME is in agreement with using this title, based on the prevalence of usage in reliable sources. It is also in agreement with WP:NPOV - basing articles on sources. This section, NPOVNAME, actually says:

    When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

So, there it is - the current name seems to have "become the usual term for the event". This section presents "Boston Massacre" and Teapot Dome scandal, as examples of where common usage or wide usage governs the naming of the article. The evidence is that these articles exist on Wikipedia. Here are more examples:

As an aside, another massacre that shows precedence for this title the Halloween Massacre (President Ford's administration). I don't see why Wikipedia should break with this governing principle. Here are all the articles on Wikipedia that have "Massacre" in the title: [20]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, one more thing. Describing what happened to the acting attorney general Sally Yates is significant coverage that correlates to this title. It is possible this connection is not being made by some editors. For example, "Boston Massacre" is used in that title, then the event is described. The words "Boston Masscre" are not parsed and each parsing discussed. No. An event took place that has that title. With this it is the same thing. Also, it just happens that reliable sources have an affinity for metaphors - hence this name. It really is as dramatic as the Saturday Night Massacre - it is just the actual details that are different. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of recent massacres (i.e. the incident has survived multiple news cycles) that were non-violent? Whereas your sources say that calling the firing "Monday Night Massacre" is not appropriate, Bowling Green massacre is a great example of an article title that is not controversial and because of prevalence and because there are no opposing sides (has anyone seen my sides, by the way?) it adheres to neutral point of view. Politrukki (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever created this as a subsection I wish to say thanks. That thought had occurred to me. First, I want to correct myself. If I claimed inaccuracy regarding your interpretation then I meant to say yours is a different interpretation - and not inaccurate. I think this "Monday Night massacre" business needs to take into consideration that none of the key administration departments were consulted prior to issuing the executive order [21].
And the sacking of Sally Yates was a continuation of this chain of events. In other words, had administration departments been consulted for counseling, Sally Yates would have been in the loop - and she would not have been sacked - assuming her input helped smooth the way for this executive order (imho - it would probably have turned out to be a different executive order). In any case - the following helps to sum up the issue for me:
"Experts who closely watch the law say Trump’s move against Yates is different but still important. Although not an immediate crisis, it is historic and a reminder that the Trump administration seems set for ever-greater conflicts with U.S. legal tradition..." [22] (italics and underline mine - I sometimes italicize quotes).
Before 1 minute and 30 seconds into this MSNBC video, the commentator says [23] "If President Trump had chose a less controversial nominee then that Attorney General would already be sworn in and Sally Quillen Yates would not have had a chance to make history tonight, as she did, first when she stood up to the President tonight, and then later when the President fired her." So, to me, this seems to be important and historic.
In Forbes it says, "Yates' declaration was still extraordinary given it's the job of the Attorney General to defend such directives". Then the article alludes to the Saturday Night Massacre. It later says, "Overall, though, the response to the firing on legal blogs and social media is one of concern for what this means for the rule-of-law under Trump, and the integrity of the Constitution".
So with that, I emphasize here how her firing represents questions of how is rule of law going to be handled and how the integrity of the Constitution might be in question. I'm not criticizing Trump here, I am just emphasizing the questions that have arisen after she was fired. Her sack abruptly shed light on some questions that seem to be critical to the functioning of this Republic (the United States).
Anyway I hope this helps. I'm not seeing where some sources actually discourage using this title. Some deem the Nixon situation as more important. But I think that is a matter of perspective. Sources indicate this is an important event, and some say historical. There are some fundamental issues that are of concern, which her exit sheds light on.
In a different NYT article, her situation is mixed in with tumultuous events [24] "The firing of Ms. Yates came at the end of a turbulent three days that began on Friday with Mr. Trump’s signing of his executive order. The action stranded travelers around the world, led to protests around the country and created alarm inside the bureaucracy".
In that same article the implications for the state of a nation seem clear "By Monday afternoon, Ms. Yates added to a deepening sense of anxiety in the nation’s capital by publicly confronting the president with a stinging challenge to his authority, laying bare a deep divide at the Justice Department, within the diplomatic corps and elsewhere in the government over the wisdom of his order". As a title "The Firing of Sally Yates" does not seem to express what is happening here.
As far as current peaceful massacres - there is as you say Bowling Green, and then maybe not current, but contemporary is Ford's situation. That seemed much less prominent than Nixon's actions. Also, the press has noted the Nixon was fighting for "his life" or political survival. In some respects, it seems that the current President is also fighting for political survival. That last comment is just my take on the matter.
Anyway, as has been demonstrated Wikipedia doesn't shy away from using massacre in the title, as long as there is wide spread usage in reliable sources.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the analogy with the Saturday Night Massacre of the Watergate scandal is weak. That article was created decades after the event, when the common name and historical importance of the event were clear. This article, of course, has been created as the event has just happened, and it's too soon to know how it will be remembered.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack, I appreciate your opinion. Actually, it seems the "Saturday Night Massacre" Wikipedia article was created decades after the event because Wikipedia didn't exist until decades after the event. The moniker "Saturday Night Massacre" was rolled out in the press just after it happened - and that is one of the names it has been known by ever since (meaning there may be other ways to refer to that event). So, there is a correlation - with the press rolling out with this just after it happened. It doesn't seem weak to me, after the way I explained it above. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously Wikipedia didn't exist back then!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry about that. I only understood your meaning hours after I posted that. I might have even said "Oh! That's what he meant." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2[edit]

Isn't "Monday Night massacre" a blowout in an NFL game? -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could mean a lot of things.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Acting Attorney General statement and firing[edit]

Concensus is no merge at this time and brief duplicate coverage is ok. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump#Acting Attorney_General_statement_and_firing could make more sense here, as background/history. –2A03:2267:0:0:810:C10C:B565:BB58 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - A short section about this in the other article is helpful to readers who want some background on this subject. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Lawsuits against...." article is informative and it should be at least referenced from this article. It's ok if there's some duplicated coverage, and maybe a {{main}} template over there pointing here, if there's not already one. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Presidency of Donald Trump" navigation box[edit]

Should the "Presidency of Donald Trump" navigation box at the bottom of the article be included if the "Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale" article is not included in the template? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ragsdale[edit]

So, was Daniel Ragsdale "dismissed" or "demoted"? Those are two very different things. The title of the article states that he was dismissed (along with Yates). Then, however, one sub-section of the article says that he was demoted. This needs to be fixed or clarified. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically when a new President has been elected, after the Inauguration or shortly before, top-ranking officials like Cabinet secretaries and agency directors leave when the President does. The second-highest ranking official, which is usually deputy director/secretary or undersecretary in some cases, then becomes the acting secretary or director until a new one is appointed and depending on what position are then confirmed by the senate (See Political appointments in the United States) This was what happened to Sally Yates, she was the Deputy AG under the Obama administration and when Loretta Lynch left she was the Acting Attorney General under the Trump administration until he fired her. In Daniel Ragsdale's case he was already the Deputy Director of ICE under the Obama administration and when Sarah Saldana the former director of ICE left, he became the acting director. He was then replaced by another acting director Thomas Homan and retained his position as the deputy director of ICE so he wasn't really demoted but no reason was ever given for the change. I think his demotion or replacement, whatever you want, is entirely irrelevant and should be removed from this article as it has nothing to do with Sally Yates` dismissal and just happened to fall on the same day. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Ragsdale's is not really a notable demotion and could be omitted entirely - except that it justified the term "Massacre" back when that was the title of the article. Better yet, it might be time to merge this article into Sally Yates. At an AFD in January, the result was keep, but the closer left open the possibility that it could in the future be merged to another article through a normal merge discussion. Maybe it's time to do that; the term did seem to be something of a flash in the pan. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both for the information and clarification. It certainly does seem to me that Daniel Ragsdale is but a minor footnote in the entire article. He probably should be deleted or, at best, mentioned as a minor footnote. Yet, however, he is named in the article title? That needs to be fixed, I believe. His name being mentioned in the article title gives an impression that he is a bigger "player" in this story than he actually is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Sally Yates` dismissal warrants a stand alone article and doesn't need to be merged at all. This article is really about Sally Yates and the title of this article should reflect that by removing Daniel Ragsdale name and especially since the article's title was changed from the phrase Monday Night Massacre. Looking through most of the references, those that included the phrase Monday Night Massacre only mentioned Sally Yates and mentioned nothing about Daniel Ragsdale and those sources were the ones that were published right after her firing. Only a few articles mentioned specifically about Daniel Ragsdale demotion/replacement and never gained much attention. I don't think the name Monday Night Massacre really caught on because it really wasn't similar to the Saturday Night Massacre and when the media realized that they started to walk back from using the term. So in sum maybe include him in the See Also section or as a footnote or maybe just don't include him at all. JayJayWhat did I do?
Yes. And, certainly, remove Ragsdale from the title! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am being BOLD. I changed the title. Ragsdale does not belong in the title. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dismissal_of_Sally_Yates&oldid=1173627764"