Talk:Sally Yates

[Acting] AG Fired by President

Has there ever been another AG fired by a POTUS? | MK17b | (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Most Senates would have confirmed the new one by now.. 67.80.53.85 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place to discuss politics. The question was a simple one - has there been an AG fired by a POTUS before? | MK17b | (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes..Nixon fired his AG2600:100A:B01A:7295:30B7:ADA6:2DD3:D9E7 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nixon's AG's resigned. | MK17b | (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You answered your own bloody question, didn't you? --62.153.77.36 (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No. (Let's keep this civil) | MK17b | (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Higher-up government officials are almost never officially fired (this case was surprising enough that I wonder what really happened). They're instead "asked to resign" and they do, or in some cases they hand in an undated letter of resignation to their boss before they're even appointed. So if the boss wants to get rid of them they just pull out the letter and say the person resigned. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider adding reference to the author of the White House letter that informed her she had been fired: John DeStefano — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyondCulture (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Democratic party

A party affiliation was added into the infobox here. I reverted it, as there is no source for this information, and it isn't relevant as she is not elected. It was promptly added again, which necessitates a discussion on this page. Bradv 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"it isn't relevant as she is not elected" It is absolutely relevant as she is a public figure. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be known. ---Dagme (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I independently did a search to see if I could find a party affiliation for her. I could not find any Reliable Source one way or the other. I did find, and have added, a source saying that she has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. I agree with Brady that we should not list any party affiliation for her since we have no evidence to support one. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This editor also inserted the same information into the article of her successor. This appears to be politically motivated, and not about sources at all. Thank you for checking this. Bradv 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comer Yates, the husband of Sally Yates, ran for office as a Democrat. However, without voter registration or a public statement, it could be moot. Yet the arguments above should be considered, in the spirit of 'heterophenomenology'!MaynardClark (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Monday Night Massacre

The following is a closed discussion of the merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merger proposal was that the proposal fails, at this time, for lack cf consensus.
It may be revived as a new proposal in the future if editors are so inclined.
Yellowdesk (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

"Massacre" of one person. The MNM article is silly in its overreach. Everything there can be easily merged into the Sally Yates article. Veggies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

KeepThe name is in obvious reference to the Saturday Night Massacre and is well sourced and well used. Per WP:COMMONNAME it is what most journalists are calling it and it is a significant event in the use of the executive's branch power over an independent judicial check that is more notable than Yates herself. JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge, which will leave a redirect from Monday Night Massacre to this article. I agree the so-called massacre is entirely about her, and is sufficiently described in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge I have started a merge discussion at the MNM article. Sally Yates is notable as deputy/acting AG, but MNM is an epithet only some sources are using, and even some strong Trump critics like Carl Bernstein are disagreeing with. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC).

* Here is my comment from that talk page: 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)

Keep for a time, maybe for 2 or 3 of weeks, if more people is ousted we could add them to the list. Its a recent event so we should wait some days to have a better picture of the consequences and other details.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep for now let's see how this plays out. Right now, it looks like it will be notable, and there is no rush to merge. In a month or so if it has faded from usage, we can consider a merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now Let's see how this plays out. -- Kndimov (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is being used by almost all mainstream media, and on the Senate floor. As for the MNM being only about one person, the Saturday Night Massacre was also about one person.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Saturday Night Massacre was about three people (two were technically resignations). --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a misreading of the SNM which was only about 1 person being fired, as this case was. The AG was ordered to fire someone, and resigned in protest. In this case the AG herself was fired. In both cases the President only ordered the firing of one person in the AG's office. JesseRafe (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not true. WashPo:"Thus, there is a split in the media over whether "Monday Night Massacre" is an apt moniker. The Huffington Post, Fortune and Salon applied it quickly. Politico published it when quoting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer... Still others argued against comparisons between Trump and Nixon. The Weekly Standard described Trump's action as "the Monday Night Massacre that wasn't." Reuters said it was "not exactly the Monday Night Massacre." Reports by CBS News, NPR, Fox News and Mother Jones did not mention a massacre on any day of the week. And, in perhaps the best example of the media's struggle to find the perfect characterization, CNN initially put "Monday Night Massacre" in a breaking news banner but then rephrased the graphic, as political commentator Carl Bernstein (of Watergate reporting fame) downplayed the similarity between Trump's action and Nixon's. The revised CNN graphic said "Trump fires acting AG for refusing to enforce travel ban." If there's an RS saying that it's being used by almost all media I'd like to see it. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I argued along similar lines last night for a rename. I've become convinced that there are enough sources to keep as is for now. These things change quickly, and this is the most common name at this time. In a few weeks it might not be, and in a few weeks it also might should be merged. We're not in a hurry here. Wikipedia is not time sensitive. It survived the now customary Trump-scandal-AfD (some of which I support.) Lets just let it play back and circle around in a few weeks when the dust settles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the attitude that it's OK for a wikipedia article to be NPOV during its maximum peak of public attention when it gets 95% of its pageviews because it can be fixed later once nobody cares anymore. A highly NPOV article title should only be used if it really, truly is the common name, and the only real RS (WashPo) discussing whether it is really is the commonname leans towards 'no'. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a rename conversation and not a merge conversation now, so I'll follow up on the MNM talk page, since the argumentation has been gone over there already. Regardless of the name, there is no rush for Wikipedia to merge. The article is well sourced and generally written from a neutral point of view. It survived AfD with a decision that a merge discussion could be held at some point. I think holding it within the same 24 hours isn't exactly the best idea, because at best you are probably going to get no consensus to merge at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The event is notable per WP:NEVENT. Merging it to this article wouldn't give it sufficient coverage, as Yates wasn't the only one affected. Bradv 19:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no deadline, and the fork is unlikely to become unwieldy or confusing. General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. per Bradv's reasoning Ashvio (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I think its fine, and I have a feeling this isn't the last we hear from Sally Yates. Missvain (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Notability of the event, no deadline, and breaking news quality make it hard to say how this should best be decided, but this seems fine for the time being. Aaron (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. We're in no rush, and I think WP:COMMONNAME would be appropriate for the time being. Wikipedia is not the place to push partisan narratives, but it isn't a place to push partisan counter-narratives, either. --Varavour (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge As a standalone article its way over the top | MK17b | (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge – My gosh, when can we stop having a new Wikipedia article for every news headline??? — JFG ^talk 23:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. The Monday Night Massacre article is entirely about Yates except for literally one sentence about Ragsdale, and the two firings are not directly related except for occurring on the same day. Additionally, it is too early to know whether this term will be in wide usage after the current news cycle rolls over. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. Not every act by Trump is independently notable. This is classic NOTNEWS material, the media has given it a catchy title but the content is best placed in a section of Yates' bio. Fences&Windows 23:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Merge This article will certainly not stand the test of history, i.e. down the line (and likely not too far down), this will fail the WP current events criteria. As it is, it is only a short article. It's title is quizzical, and likely also does not pass WP's naming conventions, as evidenced by the need to state that some news sources used the phrase and some did not. This certainly should be merged into Sally Yates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergo Sum (talk • contribs) 01:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now If no one else gets fired soon, we can merge it. --Puget Sound (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm neutral about whether to move, but it seems to me that the relevant event is the EO itself rather than the personnel gyrations following it. So Executive Order 13769 is a possible alternative redirect target than the Yates biography. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now Strong agreement with TonyBallioni; we should give the separate article time and see how it plays out, i.e. whether it will fade out from use as a news article or will become notable in public. 67.244.89.195 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge but not to Yates. Instead, merge it to Executive Order 13769, which resulted in this. Orser67 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment would support keeping over merging with Yates (as opposed to the exec order article), as I believe this event is best covered outside of one person's bio article, especially when there is another article covering the event. Orser67 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Merge All Trump did was fire her, this would get more attention if it was a subsection of the article on Sally Yates instead of a lone article that is unlikely to get as much attention as the Sally Yates article. Ralphw (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:RECENTISM. The press used this phrase when Yates was fired, but I don't believe it has lasting power. I think it's already fallen out of use. Media headlines should not automatically become their own articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. This term is WP:RECENT and it's not clear that, beyond a few headlines on the day it happened, the term will have meaningful historical significance. Wikipedia should not be in the business of taking every headline that turns a phrase and turning it into an article. Oren0 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep for now: Trump's behaviors like this may turn out to be a daily occurrence. In which case, yes, this page should be deleted. Until then, I'd like to give this a little time and see if this becomes an ongoing habit. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Recent phrase without evidence of lasting significance. Content already largely exists on other articles and can be easily combined. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong merge: a relatively insignificant event with a sensational and partisan title that resulted from Executive Order 13769. Better to merge with this article and the executive order. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete MNM without formal merge. It looks like every bit of useful content is already incorporated into this article or the EO article. Replace with redirect to EO article or section. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid SPINOFF of the EO article. The section on Yates' firing is already bordering on UNDUE. Easily meets GNG criteria. gobonobo ^{+ c} 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Unlikely the term will remain to be known in this context CatapultTalks (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Just because a small section of the media over-hype one event through hyperbole there is no reason for us to follow suit. This isn't even a footnote to history - not even a footnote to a footnote). Info should be in the biographies of those jnvolved and the EO article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge This can easily fit in Yates' Wikipedia. Same reasons as Antony-22 and others. Classicwiki (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep There were more officials fired or replaced than just Sally Yates. In a related incident, when U.S. diplomats sent a complaint cable through (or to) the State Department, then White House spokesman Spicer told them to 'keep with the program or go.' So it's not only about Yates. -Mardus /talk 14:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep (all arguments given above already) --WiseWoman (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong merge into Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale - when taken divided between the two individuals, the information barely takes up a paragraph on Yates and a line or two on Ragsdale, and is centred entirely around the individuals with virtually no information on the wider impact (if any exists); there is simply not enough notable information for this to ever be more than a stub that would be perfectly in place in their own articles. The existence of the distinctive title "Monday Night Massacre" (aside however much of a misnomer firing two individuals being termed a "massacre" is) is not enough to make it notable; a neologism does not instantly give an event any notability. Benjitheijneb (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - That is not to say that no impact of the executive order exists; but the firing of these individuals has little to no visible effect that cannot be better attributed to the executive order itself; if anything, this Monday Night "Massacre" is simply an effect of the executive order and nothing more. Benjitheijneb (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yates informed White House Counsel about Flynn concerns

Yates warned White House Counsel that she believed Flynn had misrepresented his conversations with the Russians about the Russian sanctions. I think this should probably be added to the article but I'm not exactly sure on the details. The source is this from the Washington Post. Knope7 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Root prosecution

The lengthy paragraphs about the Root prosecution are irrelevant to this article. This is article is about Sally Yates' life. The Root prosecution would be relevant to an article about the Yates memo, but even then lengthy paragraphs quoting Roots perspective that the Yates memo is unfair would need to be contextualized and balanced with other views. In this article, the Root paragraphs run afoul of both WP:Relevant and WP:NOV Knope7 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge with dismissal article

Dismissal of Sally Yates contains largely duplicated material from this article. Contrary to the James Comey case, the events surrounding her dismissal have not developed into something wider. Other articles cover the travel bans that she opposed and the legal process around them. Nothing pleads for keeping a WP:CONTENTFORK article about Yates' dismissal. Please support or oppose the merge below. — JFG ^talk 17:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge - a small content fork with little reason to be a standalone article. Cjhard (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge - no real reason to keep these articles separate. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge: This topic has not panned out to be the notable incident many initially believed it to be. It can all fit nicely on the Sally Yates page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom, not a fully separate topic that can't be discussed in the main. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 08:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Tag-team reversions to lede?

I am mostly new here, so I am having trouble understanding why I am being tag-team reverted by a group of current editors who do not seem to want to dialog on this page. Here's my edit which they keep removing from the end of the 2nd paragraph in the lede:

Her assessment of this was contradicted by notable legal expert Alan Dershowitz

Comments? Thoughts? Xerton (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have not been one of the editors removing your statement, however, I agree with their action. The lead summarizes the most important points of the article. That Alan Dershowitz contradicts here is not one of the most important points of the article. I don't think Dershowitz has that much credibility or importance here. Knope7 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Then your problems isn't against putting some NPOV balance in the lede, but against Mr. AD himself? As I see it, the lede tours Ms Yate's perspective too much and implicitly suggests that her reasoning is valid. What I did was add some balance by finding a notable legal expert who, not being a political adversary of Ms. Yates, has an alternative view which by all standards is NPOV. Xerton (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

---