Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Honest Loyalty"

I object to this edit by User:MrX (emphasis added in bold):

According to Comey associates interviewed by The New York Times, Associated Press, and CBS News, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge his loyalty to him. Comey allegedly declined to make this pledge, saying that he would give him "honest loyalty""honesty. Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate.

References

MrX's edit summary states: "Comey did not say that. He said 'you will have that'. Best to leave this in a form that faithfully reflects the source." Let's start with the easy stuff:

• Is there any rational reason to have a quote mark on the left of the word "honesty" but not on the right? No reason has been offered, so please restore the quote mark on the right.
• Is there any reason to delete the word "allegedly"? No reason has been offered to use wikivoice here, so please restore that word in order to be faithful to the source which itself uses a lot of hedging: "according to the account of the conversation. But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be 'honest loyalty.' 'You will have that,' Mr. Comey told his associates he responded." It is beyond bad editing to put in wikivoice a claim that the cited sources do not put in their own voice.
• Lastly, do the cited sources not use the term "honest loyalty"? What kind of nonsense is it to say that the words "honest loyalty" do not "faithfully" reflect the source? Comey allegedly said that he would give Trump "honest loyalty". Where is there any ambiguity about that? This was allegedly the outcome of the conversation, and I strongly object to its deletion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edit placed "honest loyalty" in quotes, making it appear as if it was a direct quote of James Comey. However, James Comey never spoke that phrase. Why do you insist on an edit that is demonstrably false? ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey allegedly said that`Trump would have his "honest loyalty". There is no ambiguity about it whatsoever. There is no ambiguity that the cited sources use the term "honest loyalty". If you want to change it to say "Comey allegedly said Trump would have what Trump called 'honest loyalty'" then go ahead but it's awkward and unnecessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with MrX and ValarianB. "Honesty" reflects what Comey actually said, and better captures (and more concisely captures) the tenor of the sources. As the citations indicate in the quote field, the summary/most important thing is that Trump asked for loyalty and Comey declined to give it, instead offering his honesty. Neutrality^talk 18:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comey allegedly declined to pledge simply "loyalty" and instead agreed to Trump's request for "honest loyalty". How ironic that all of this spinning is occurring in the midst of a discussion about "honesty". Do I have to be sufficiently friendly and influential to make this BLP accurate? Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Comey did not say those words. Either quote both sides of the conversation or accurately paraphrase it. - MrX 18:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You rephrase it, you're the one who deleted the material. I have no objection to "Comey allegedly offered what Trump called 'honest loyalty'". I decline your kind invitation to break 3RR. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, we should leave the "honest loyalty" part out of the lead and possibly expand on it in body of the article. The significant point here is that Trump asked for loyalty and Comey offered honesty. Does that seem reasonable?- MrX 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does not, because (allegedly) the offer of simple honesty occurred at an intermediate point in the conversation, and the final result of the conversation was (allegedly) Comey agreeing to Trump's request for "honest loyalty". It's quite obvious that some editors here want to make it seem as outrageous as possible that a president would request loyalty from a subordinate FBI Director, when in fact that FBI Director allegedly agreed to offer a form of loyalty. Spin, spin, spin. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So in your unspun version of what happened, Comey capitulated to Trump's insistent request for a pledge of loyalty, seemingly ignoring his oath of office in which he pledged to uphold the Constitution. Is that about right?- MrX 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Mr. Anything, he did not. Comey said he would give Trump "honesty". Honesty is in quotes in that case, as it is a word directly attributed to Comey's voice, i.e. it was literally a word that he spoke to the president. It was the president who pressed on whether it would be "honest loyalty" (a quote), to which Comey replied "you will have that" (a quote). When you quote people, you must do so with precision, not piece together what you think they meant or infer this or that. ValarianB (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See my immediately-preceding reply to MrX. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I did, and it does nothing to advance your argument for improperly citing quoted material. No one here is making it "outrageous as possible", as the near-universal condemnation of the affair by all corners of the political spectrum suffices for that purpose. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty indifferent as to whether "honest loyalty" should be in the lede or in the main text so I'll defer to what others decide. Feel free to undo my editions and not have it counted as a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Chop the Lead

It seems the lead has run amok: into 3 screens of length, content that does not suit WP:LEAD and WP:WBA, verges into chasing WP:TABLOID, and has made for arguing and edit warring. So asking for general opinions of chopping and restraint for lead seems like it might help.

Please post your thoughts on what would be a reduced lead. In particular, do folks agree to these:

• per WP:LEAD no more than four well-composed paragraphs.
• per WP:LEADELEMENTS and MOS:BEGIN, the first paragraph should define or identify the topic and scope.
• per MOS:INTRO avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have previously stated that the lead needs to be trimmed back. Because this is so recent, it's difficult to know what is significant and what is less significant. My thoughts right now are something roughly like this:

• Remove the second paragraph
• Reduce the third paragraph to something like:

Following the dismissal, the White House said Trump had been considering the dismissal since the election, had experienced an "erosion of confidence" because Comey was "not doing a good job", pointed to Comey's recent congressional testimony as problematic, and also based the firing partly on advice from the United States Department of Justice alleging that Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Later, inconsistencies arose as the White House and Trump made public comments about the dismissal. According to Comey associates, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge loyalty to him, to which Comey demurred. Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate. Suggestions that Trump dismissed Comey because of the investigation into Russian interference surfaced when a memo documenting private discussions between Comey and Trump were reported, and a report that on the day after the dismissal, Trump had told Russian officials that he had faced great pressure because of the Russia investigation. The remarks occurred in the same conversation in which Trump disclosed classified information to the Russians that had been conveyed to the Americans by Israel.

• Remove the fourth and fifth paragraphs (portions covered in the third paragraph):
• Retain the sixth paragraph.- MrX 21:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree but is all that info covered already later down in the article? Does anything need to be moved down into the body and then summarized? Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if any of it is not in the body of the article it should be.- MrX 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Prosecutor" or "Counsel"

The term Special Prosecutor is factually incorrect. The correct term under the enabling statute us "Counsel"

Read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html

98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

"Loyalty" incident in lead

I've returned to the lead a sentence of text on the dinner meeting where Trump reportedly asked Comey for loyalty and he declined to give it. This was removed by Anythingyouwant.

The reliable sources accord this high significance in the context of the lead-up to Comey's firing, and I didn't see any conversation here on this talk page that would indicate that removal is appropriate. Indeed, Anythingyouwant wanted the wording of this sentence to be changed, but this was contested by myself, MrX, and ValarianB. Moreover, a few dozen other editors have edited this article and none seems to have objected to the presence of this critical text in the lead. Neutrality^talk 13:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of this material from the lead had not previously been discussed, pro or con, so I properly removed it per WP:Bold. My edit summary stated: "Moving loyalty stuff out of the lead because the lead is quite long and the lead does not say what (if anything) this 'loyalty' stuff had to do with the dismissal." The tag atop this article stated "This article's introduction may be too long for the length of the article. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article." Now that the material has been put back in the lead, here is what it says:

“ According to Comey associates interviewed by The New York Times, Associated Press, and CBS News, Trump had asked Comey in January to pledge his loyalty to him, and Comey declined to make this pledge, saying that he would give him "honesty". Trump denied that he asked Comey for his loyalty, but says such a discussion would not necessarily have been inappropriate. ”

References

Frankly, this is garbage (not "critical text" as (non)Neutrality says in his edit summary), for two separate reasons. First, as stated in my edit summary, it gives the reader no clue what this incident has to do with the dismissal. Second, it deliberately omits how the alleged conversation concluded: with Comey agreeing to Trumps' request for "honest loyalty". The latter term ("honest loyalty") was previously removed repeatedly at this page for two possible reasons: first, to make it seem like Trump was allegedly making a "loyalty" request that was completely out of bounds when in fact Comey thought it appropriate to offer a form of loyalty; second, to make it seem like the alleged conversation did not end in consensus and was thus an unstated reason for the dismissal. That is the effect of removing the term "honest loyalty" which is a term to which the reliable sources accord high significance. I strongly object to selectively editing this lead in a way that has the effect of severely misleading readers, if not confusing them as well, and of course occupying space in the lead that could be put to much better purposes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No way should the loyalty pledge content be removed from the lead. It seems like it was removed petulantly because the editor did not get their way in the previous discussions. In response to the post immediately above, we should not be trying to give readers "clues". We should present a simple summary of the most important facts, then the reader should read the rest of the article, then they should read the sources. In this case, the simple facts are that Trump privately asked Comey to pledge his loyalty and Comey demurred. Trump's made up concept of "honest loyalty" is not noteworthy. - MrX 14:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources do indeed characterize the exchange as a demand for loyalty, and Comey not refusing but not exactly agreeing either. In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred ValarianB (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No comment on the details of how it's included but claiming that this doesn't belong in the lede is mind boggling. Every single source mentions it and every single source mentions it right away. Trying it to tuck it away in some obscure corner of the article is plain WP:TENDENTIOUS. And there's been way too much of that lately, from a user (Anythingyouwant) who had previously been topic banned from all US-politics related articles but seems not to have learned their lesson.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions or speculate about the motivations of editors. Not all of us agree with your characterizations. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to strong arm WP:UNDUE material into the lede with vague threats of AE action is not appropriate, VM.--v/r - TP 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have adjusted that quote to say "honest loyalty" which is what the cites quote where it was left and what is said later in the article. Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read the section above this one — Comey said "honesty" then Trump pressed him on whether it would be "honesty loyalty" he said "you will have that." Per CBS News: "He meant, said the source, that he would always be honest with the president." So simply saying "honesty loyalty" obscures what the sources actually say. (Note that Comey never said those words, as quote marks would imply). Neutrality^talk 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Hmm - I'm thinking stopping in the middle isn't accurately paraphrasing the event either, but see that things moved on and both parts are in there at the moment. Markbassett (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit by User:MrX again mangles the lead by truncating our report of this alleged conversation, thus misleading readers to think Comey did not end up offering honest "loyalty" to Trump, and misleading readers to think that Trump fired him in part for refusing to do so. Please stop propagandizing in the lead. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We have talked about this on this very page, and you were not able to gain consensus for including those details in the lead. If you want to get broader input, please initiate one or more RfCs, but please don't keep restoring content that has been objected to until a consensus to include it has been reached.- MrX 16:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the formulation that you deleted was not discussed in a previous section. Second, even if there were consensus supporting your removal (there wasn't), consensus is no excuse for violating core Wikipedia policies that bar propagandizing, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I haven't got infinite time to be on Wikipedia today, but will try to flush more of my life down the drain by pursuing this with you later here, at BLPN, via RFC, or wherever is necessary to eliminate the propaganda from the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have partially self-reverted. The "honest loyalty" was discussed and I did not see consensus to include. Please correct me (with links or diffs) if I am mistaken. You added this:

Many commentators and Democratic politicians who had previously called for Comey's resignation nevertheless criticized the dismissal because they said it suggested an effort by Trump to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign in connection with alleged interference of the 2016 presidential campaign by the Russian government.
— [1][2]

which I object to because it is substantially similar to the previous content that were trying promote, and which failed to obtain consensus. Also, we need to quit calling the Russian election interference "alleged". See my previous comments and the non-cherry-picked analysis I did on that article's talk page.- MrX 17:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that your partial self-revert had anything whatsoever to do with "loyalty" in the lead, nor does the blockquote that you mention, and even if this talk page section were about those things, you completely fail to engage with the fact that the blockquoted material was proposed by another user above, not me, and was met with no objection whatsoever. Please stop WP:GAMING. If you think some material is flawed, try suggesting how it might be improved. And please don't clutter up this talk page section with material that doesn't fall within the scope of its header. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How exactly am I gaming? As far as I know everything I wrote above is accurate. If you are aware or an uncontested edit proposal for this material or a previous consensus, it would be helpful if you could link to it, please. I'm not sure why you think I would want to improve text that you added promoting a point of view that is not reflective of the body of available sources. The red herring about Democrat's hypocricy is not what is important about this subject. I'm certain that I have said that before.- MrX 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, the "Many commentators...." proposal was made here. The proposal had nothing to do with hypocrisy. And it also has nothing to do with the "loyalty" stuff or your persistent efforts to present a misleading and incomplete account of the "loyalty" stuff in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the discussion in which five commenters opposed almost identical content. Sorry, that's not even close to a consensus.- MrX 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion in which one commenter who opposed the proposed content provided a revised draft that he said would alleviate his objections. That's called responsiveness and collaboration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Chop it out? - on further reflection ... this much controversy and lead spaceover what is about 1 to 2% of the article body .... Think it WP:LEAD is better served by chopping out the entire paragraph, as it is neither a summary of the article, nor a major focus of it, nor a final conclusion. It's a cute anecdote, but other than showing leaks of innuendos get published, meh. It isn't something official from any principle nor leading to any evidence or followup event. I'll start a separate thread about chopping and see what folks think. Markbassett (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

I cannot imagine any valid reason for the following deletions:

Several sources within the FBI have stated that the White House's firing of Comey was a culmination of high-level efforts to interfere in the Russia investigation. Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date". Comey has indicated he is willing to testify about his dismissal in an open hearing. He declined an invitation from the Senate Intelligence Committee to testify before a closed-door session..... Comey's termination was controversial, with some comparing it to President Richard Nixon's termination of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, and others disputing that comparison. On May 17, 2017 the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the Russia investigation.

References

This is how one subtracts balance from an article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to "Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date" being restored.

I do object to "and others disputing that comparison" being restored because it is WP:OR. In fact, "according to Bernstein, Trump’s firing of Comey is “a potentially more dangerous situation than Watergate."[3] As far as I can tell, the Fox News segments doesn't mention the Cox firing.- MrX 11:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So, you want us to tell readers that some people compared this to Watergate, but not tell them that others including Bob Woodward disputed the comparison? That strikes you as NPOV, User:MrX? Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I proposed no such thing. Woodward was not responding to the people who made the comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre. Setting up an argument that doesn't exist in a single source seems like editorializing.- MrX 12:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What Woodward is saying in the Yahoo News-cited article is more nuanced than the outright "the comparison is invalid" you are suggesting. ValarianB (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I quoted Woodward at length above (emphasis added): "BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST....But this is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime on the Russian issue... in the case of Nixon, he had his former White House counsel, John Dean, for four days testifying that the president corruptly and illegally led the obstruction of justice and you have nothing comparable. Now, that doesn't mean, you know, we don't know where this is going to go. There is an immense amount of smoke." You think we should completely ignore what he said, and instead pretend that the comparisons to Watergate were undisputed? I think you both know better than that, don't you? Please see WP:NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to the fact that a comparison to Watergate is disputed, but MrX is saying that the direct comparison to the firing of Cox was not mentioned by Woodward. I'd say that he was making the comparison in terms of the size and scale of the scandal and if it implicated the president in corruption. The ideal thing here would to be to find another source that's more direct and outright. If not, this should probably be rephrased to be more accommodating. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Rephrased and reinserted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Accurate articles derive from citing a source correctly, yes. Looks good now. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This reinsertion is entirely precipitous and should be reversed. I object to the McCabe bit. It's cherry-picked. McCabe is not privvy to everything Comey knew and/or is not going to reveal whether he/Comey felt that Trump or others were engaged in (possibly criminal) obstruction of the FBI investigation. Please undo your hasty reinsertion and let the discussion proceed along a natural and customary timeline here. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The McCabe quote was in the lead for awhile before it was removed, and the person who removed it has no objection to reinsertion. Of the four people commenting in this talk page section, only SPECIFICO has objected, so I don't plan to remove the material. That material conveys what McCabe is aware of, and what McCabe is aware of seems very notable, at least as notable as what several anonymous sources within the FBI say they are aware of. McCabe is the acting director of the FBI. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would have been wise to wait until a couple of other editors weighed in on the matter. In any case, if we specifically quote Woodward we should also quote Bernstein, and I don't think we should in the lead.- MrX 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't quote Woodward, and the view of Bernstein is included in the prior sentence. Redford and Hoffman have remained silent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That bit misrepresents the cited source. Read the entire article where McCabe is challenged on the firing and states that he cannot comment. The firing is widely regarded as possible criminal obstruction of justice. And nothing changes the fact that a quick restoration before others can comment is not constructive. There's no rush. A good edit will gain consensus soon enough, but obstinacy will not. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about obstinacy. Do you dispute that the McCabe quote says the opposite of what's in the previous sentence of the lead? I am open to improvements in how we present the McCabe quote, if you would do us the favor of suggesting such. Meanwhile, I don't think there's consensus to remove. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The writing "Appearing before Congress two days after the dismissal, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified: "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date"." Much better to say, "although acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe denied it." As for the second deletion, "some" and "others" are weasel-words and should be avoided unless they appear in the source. They imply that the numbers are significant which is a judgment that can only be made in sources; when editors do it, it is OR. TFD (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of name info

There has been lots of discussion over mentioning the name "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the article. It has been discussed in a few different places in different contexts (in fact some individuals attempted to use that phrase as an excuse to delete this article).

For the record: This phrase is widely used and notable. Certain individuals have attempted to purport that this is an obscure phrase that was invented by a random WP editor. However the widespread usage of this name has been well established:

• WP discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_10#Tuesday_Night_Massacre Link deletion proposal
  • Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#.22Massacre.22
• Usage by the media:
  • Jackson Sun (May 13)
  • Times Argus (May 13)
  • U.S. News (May 12)
  • Boston Herald (May 11)
  • Slate (May 11)
  • Fox News (May 11)
  • Wall Street Journal (May 10)
  • Fortune (May 9)
  • The Irish Times
  • Bloomberg News
  • Mediate
  • LA Times
  • SF Chronicle
  • Philadelphia Inquirer
  • [4], [5], [6], , [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]
• Discussions of trending in social media:
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]

Nevertheless, it seems there is an agenda by some individuals to continue trying to hide this name from Wikipedia.

-- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

I am requesting feedback on the following question: "Should the article mention the name Tuesday Night Massacre in the lead section?" -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mention it - The name Tuesday Night Massacre is widely used by the media and the general public. Whether or not this name is fair is irrelevant. Its notability is fact and hiding it is introducing deliberate bias. -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Nope, not in the lead section. Your very first source is an opinion piece in the Jackson Sun. Opinion pieces are mere primary sources per WP:OR, so you need to focus on reliable secondary sources to be persuasive here. Per WP:OTHERNAMES, "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article...." The title of the present article is not a name, and therefore significant alternatives need not be mentioned, and surely should not be in bold. Go ahead and mention this buzzword in the article body if you like. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that wasn't a primary source. Not all of these are sources to be used in the article. I was simply showing notability. But there are many secondary sources listed as well. WP:OTHERNAMES does not say "If you choose not to use the article name in the lead sentence then alternative names should not be mentioned" so I don't know what your point is. -- MC 2605:6000:ec16:c000:38c1:c602:9adc:a4c7 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERNAMES says that when the title is not a name, then significant alternative designations for the topic need not be mentioned in the article, much less with bold lettering in the lead sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't think the lede is the proper place; the #Media commentary section is probably better. Its use has been dropping since the initial news burst. ansh666 06:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If consensus is to include in the lede, I'd prefer wording like "sometimes referred to as", since not everyone uses the phrase and some sources actually use this kind of language themselves when talking about it. ansh666 05:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• While the comparison with Nixon's historical Saturday Night Massacre has been widespread, the moniker "Tuesday Night Massacre" itself has not endured beyond emotional reports on the first couple days of the affair. For that reason, it is not lead-worthy and should only be mentioned briefly in the "Media commentary" section. — JFG ^talk 07:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mention, but not in Lede - Think I concur with User:ansh666 on this one. We don't really know if moniker's like this will stick until a long time after-the-fact. NickCT (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mention in lead: The overwhelming amount of sources that deemed it the "Tuesday Night Massacre" seems sufficient to include. Whether or not its an appropriate pejorative is up for the reader to decide. Kamalthebest (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude from lead, and only include in body with extreme caution. The sourcing appears to be extremely thin. I went through quite a few of the listed sources and none of them were reliable non-opinion sources that adopted the term in their own voice. I could see the words "Tuesday Night Massacre" being included in the body of the article in the context of a quotation of a noteworthy opinion, with appropriate in-text attribution. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• No and Invalid RFC - looks like false information here and preloaded the arguments so ... no. Factually it fails as Google is hitting 4 million plus about his dismissal -- and only 27 thousand include the phrase "Tuesday Night Massacre". Procedurally it fails because WP:RFC statement should be supposed to be neutral and brief -- not start as an unsupported conclusion "For the record: This phrase is widely used and notable." and "the widespread usage of this name has been well established", and then further leading the discussion by listing a couple dozen offbeat places it was found. (Even listed the same Irish times opinion piece twice.) Come back as a neutral question and present both sides position as best you can -- and if it's trying to claim 'dominant' then stick to more mainstream media and academic sources. Minor remark by portion of opinion writers, maybe; not significant enough to mention, maybe... Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Don't mention in the lead. It's a mildly interesting bit of information, but more about journalism than about the topic at hand. Watergate parallels speak for themselves, so let us not interrupt them. --Kizor 10:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mention in the lead. It's an accurate description of some of the media's reporting of this event, if preceded by something such as "sometimes referred to as..."—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Don't mention in lead - Summoned by bot. It is a POV description that is clearly WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Mention in lede It is in the headline of the Finiancial Times - not an opinion piece and extremely high quality publication. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's actually an opinion piece. It reads like an opinion piece, and the author, Edward Luce, is a "columnist and commentator" for FT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mention in lede, as it is a noteworthy and encyclopedic comparison used in many sources. Sagecandor (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro sentence

Shouldn't the intro sentence include more information about why this action is so stunning and is one that will be commented on and discussed and analysed for a LONG time: that historically, of all the positions in the US government, heads of the FBI are not fired and that Comey was investigating Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.15 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead paragraph does discuss whether Comey was investigating Trump. Regarding whether FBI directors are fired, it's true that this is unusual, but it's not very different from being forced to resign which has happened before, for example to Director William Sessions and Acting Director L. Patrick Gray. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)