Talk:Sally Yates/Archive 1

FYI
Not sure how this will change the article, but Steve Miller is on Fox News right now saying she isn't acting AG anymore. http://imgur.com/a/4wLQX 67.80.53.85 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was already added to the article. Knope7 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Deputy Attorney General
Anyone know if she is still the Deputy AG?—Fundude99talk to me 02:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * She is not. Missvain (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , so just to confirm, the US currently does not have a Deputy AG?—Fundude99talk to me 03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dana J. Boente has been appointed and sworn in as acting AG. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Boente being appointed as acting AG, however I'm asking about the Deputy AG.—Fundude99talk to me 03:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Deputy AGs are like bank vice presidents. There are as many Deputy AGs as there are DOJ programs and regions -- dozens of them.  Click here for a selection of DOJ programs.  If you are concerned that there is no one to replace Boente, you needn't be.   General Ization   Talk   03:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not concerned about it, just curious...—Fundude99talk to me 03:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those divisions are run by Assistant Attorney Generals actually; the United States Deputy Attorney General is essentially the chief operating officer of the United States Department of Justice. NW ( Talk ) 03:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I suppose you're right. Thanks for the clarification.   General Ization   Talk   03:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, she was DAG for a year. There is none currently. She briefly served as Acting Attorney General in the Trump Administration after serving as DAG.

Editorializing
Sally Yates may or may not be an "American hero," but it is definitely editorializing to include that on this page. Scapulus (talk)
 * Obviously. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  02:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry—didn't think I needed to point that out. Scapulus (talk) (UTC)


 * As was Elliot Richardson. But yes, editorializing.  In a few days - or even tomorrow, we'll no doubt have third-party sources saying it.Carlo (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Already a Facebook meme certifying she is a 'goddamned [sic] American hero'. Should this be included, it is noteworthy. MyTigers (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Are Facebook memes considered reliable sources? Scapulus (talk) 22:28, February 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * Keith Olbermann has recently referred to Sally as a hero, would this be notableMyTigers (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Whitehouse
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158573747555725 Jasperwillem (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The original statement was linked to in a ref. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  03:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Crap grammar /edit request
"She served as Acting United States Attorney General from January 20, 2017 until her dismissal by President Donald Trump on January 30, 2017, following she ordered the Justice Department not to defend Trump's immigration-related executive order in court."

I don't even know what this means.

Specifically the part that states, "following she ordered".

Please change it to readable English. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Brad  v  03:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks - too many cooks in the kitchen :) &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  04:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you want to up the protection
Pending changes, extended protection, sysop, whatever. Ping me if you need me ok? Thanks for your work. --- Missvain (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Somebody please correct the dates under "early life and education"
It states she was born in 1960. She couldn't have been an attorney at the age of 4!

excerpt;

Early life and education

Yates was born in Atlanta to J. Kelley Quillian, an attorney and judge who served as a judge on Georgia Court of Appeals between 1966 and 1984,

Thank you

Never mind, I misread it. The dates I questioned pertained to one of her parents not her.

76.16.181.138 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017: delete Party from infobox
Please delete the uncited infobox Party entry, which is an uncited contentious assertion that needs to be removed immediately from this BLP.


 * I removed it, Neutralitytalk 03:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Too heavily focused on her Jan 2017 firing
Is there any way of building up the information on the rest of her life so that the one incident doesn't dominate the article? (Such as adding more on her life before AND AFTER?) 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)ES
 * There isn't much to say regarding the "after", since this only just happened. As far as the incident itself, since almost nobody had heard of her before she directed the DOJ not to defend the Muslim ban, the focus seems appropriate to me per WP:WEIGHT. As more information becomes available, it will be added. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look like there are starting to be more sources out there regarding her career before the dismissal. I'll see if I can use any in the article or I'll post some here on the talk page. I would encourage anyone else to look for sources too. Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias
The editing of this article is absurd and biased. It should start with a sentence that she served as U.S. Attorney of the Northern District of Attorney of Georgia and the Deputy Attorney General. BEFORE a sentence on a 10-day tenure as Acting Attorney General and today's firing. Really disgusting. More senior editors of wikipedia or the company itself need to address this.

Note: The text that says she was asked to serve in the position by the Trump administration should be reviewed, as the source provided doesn't support it. What is supported is that she was appointed by the Obama administration, and was serving in the position until a Trump appointee could be confirmed by the Senate.

EDIT: Good. I see this has now been done. Pleased.
 * Please sign your comments using four consecutive "~" marks. Also, this article is going to change a lot in the next few hours and days. Feel free to point out ways you think it can be improved, but it helps to assume good faith. Knope7 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But seriously, nothing on her seminal Yates Memo as DAG that emphasized individual accountability in corporate fraud and sent shortwaves through the system (in a good way)? Well, there will be. She has just become a celebrity with tv interviews and magazine spreads to follow, and all her good work will be highlighted and make its way to this page.


 * We require reliable sources. There were not a lot of easily accessible reliable sources about Yates just a few days ago. I do expect major news organizations will publish more about her background in the upcoming days which will help us improve this article. Knope7 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "~" from Brooksy465. Fair point on assuming good faith. Apologies. Here are some articles that discuss the Yates memo, which was issued in 2015: http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-4/issue-1/articles/corporate-compliance-programs-pretext-panacea.html https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/doj-emphasizes-importance-prompt-material-cooperation-justin-brooks  Sidley Austin and a number of large firms have wrote about it too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooksy465 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How can something be seminal on the day it happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:325B:CEE0:C9C8:5074:38F2:B52E (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The memo referred to above wasn't issued today. That was the point; there is much about her DOJ career that is missing from this article.  As another replied, there will be more raw material to work with now.  General Ization   Talk   04:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fired for cause
Can someone edit that she was fired for cause..obviously the attorney general can not tell all attorneys in doj not to represent President. In this situation people would respectfully resign. Joepayne1973 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree.. Joepayne1973 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You agree with yourself? &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  02:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is their first time editing Wikipedia (with an account at least). Please don't Don't bite the newcomers. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny, tho'! 104.169.17.29 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to bite. Just seemed like sockpuppetry. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  02:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To respond to the OP: We will not say that unless reliable sources make such a statement. To date, they have not.  Directors of federal agencies generally have wide latitude to direct the work of their employees, including in this case DOJ attorneys.  I'm sure she was aware when she made the statement that as an Obama nominee and as acting AG at the behest of the current administration, she could be removed from her position at the President's direction, with or without cause. She apparently felt it was worth taking that risk.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   03:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whitehouse said: "The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States." This is the reason she was fired - and that's certainly "for cause"; from a reliable source - see official FB link on this page. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that already appears in the article; hence we do not and cannot speculate about what she had or didn't have the right to do and whether it was "for cause", nor does it matter. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   03:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "For cause" is a firing rationale invoked by one's boss - not some abstraction related to a "right". She surely was fired for cause; the cause being 'disloyalty'. That's an undeniable fact, supported by reliable sources. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Trump administration's rationale for dismissing Yates is already expressed in the article. That is the only rationale that belongs here. It doesn't really matter whether you or I think it was "for cause" or even justifiable. Our opinions do not belong in the article.  Please review WP:NPOV. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   02:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some video floating around of Yates during her Senate confirmation hearing under Obama. Jeff Sessions asked her if she would disobey the president if the president asked her to do something illegal.  She said yes, she would follow the constitution, which was presumably what Sessions wanted to hear.  I dunno know if there's enough secondary sourcing to make that worth putting in the article, but I could understand what was being implied.  50.0.136.56 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * To the OP who said "obviously the attorney general can not tell all attorneys in doj not to represent President" -- actually, that is exactly the job of the Attorney General, because a US Attorney who thought it was his or her job to "represent the president" would be unfit for office. It's important to remember that the Justice Department is slightly different from other executive departments. The Attorney General and US Attorneys represent the law and the constitution, not the president, and (since we're talking about what to put in Wikipedia) it would be inaccurate (not to mention editorializing and inflammatory) to suggest otherwise.  The president has to be very circumspect about directing the actions of the DoJ, and there are rules that put much more limitation on his ability to influence the DoJ's operations compared with his influence on other departments.  If, as can sometimes happen, a US Attorney or Attorney General disagrees with the president on what the law actually is, there are mechanisms that have been used in the past that would allow for him or her to register that difference of opinion while the two of them to work around it. (For example, by appointing special counsel who would investigate and/or prosecute cases referred by DHS.)AnneTG (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

[Acting] AG Fired by President
Has there ever been another AG fired by a POTUS? <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (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? <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (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. <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (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) <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (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)

Should be GOP lawyer Grimacedon5460 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Duped by democratic party GOP registration would put her on Forbes list Grimacedon5460 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2019 (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. Brad v  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. Brad  v  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)

Proposed merge with Monday Night Massacre
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. Brad  v  19:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no deadline, and the fork is unlikely to become unwieldy or confusing. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> 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 <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (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  &amp;  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. D ARTH B OTTO 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. Reywas92Talk 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&#39;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. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 06:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, not a fully separate topic that can't be discussed in the main. Reywas92Talk 22:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

✅ — 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)
 * I responded here . It doesn't belong in the lede, and I'm wondering why a new editor has placed it there three times now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're placing inappropriate emphasis into the lede, using a controversial figure's comments. If Dershowitz (who might fairly be described as a legal contrarian, and whose views are consistently controversial) is to be mentioned at all, it should be in the body of the article. Your edit summary "the lede is too pro-Yates POV without this comment" is in itself an acknowledgement that you're trying to insert a POV analysis into the introduction to the article. The lede is for just the facts of what she did, not for a deconstruction of her actions.The lede as it stands states what she did and why, which is all it's supposed to do. It's not a coatrack for everybody who has disagreed with her.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:48, 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 touts 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)


 * You didn't read my comment very thoroughly - you're placing commentary into the lede and you're using a controversial figure to carry that baggage.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And you removed my comment, presumably by accident.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done nothing illicit (nor do I intend to do anything such); I therefore do not appreciate suggestions to the contrary Xerton (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . Please be more careful.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this commentary by a single individual belongs in the lead section. Neutralitytalk 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not insisting that my proposed edit be verbatim adopted by the consensus, but I am hoping to get this board to see that 2nd paragraph, by only noting Yate's perspective, frames the introduction to this article as if she's right on the merits of position. I've read Dershowitz's commentaries on this topic carefully; I think he's correct and she's wrong. And I think most legal scholars agree with his position. Thus, what I am concerned about is that this article is giving our readers an insipid introduction to this topic via a POV bias in the lede. Xerton (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also oppose adding this sort of commentary by a contrarian (or anybody) to the lead. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think it's necessary to distinguish between 'tag team reversions,' which implies that there's a coordinated effort to suppress a valid edit, and the spontaneous recognition by multiple unaffiliated editors that an edit is inappropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the article lede
I am interested to add this text to the end of the 2nd paragraph in the lede:
 * Her assessment of this was contradicted by notable legal expert Alan Dershowitz

I invite full discussion here, but let's focus on constructive discussions, and stay away from finger pointing.

Xerton (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all the reasons stated in the section above. This is not appropriate for the lede. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for previously stated reasons. The lede is not a coatrack for selected views.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having read through the discussions above, I agree with the majority that the addition would not be helpful. It is not the kind of content that belongs in the lede, and it would (unintentionally) look like cherry-picking a specific source in order to introduce a particular POV into an otherwise factual introduction. --bonadea contributions talk 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per my statement above. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we please have some discussion before we try to foreclose this topic via voting? Xerton (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it was your idea to put it to a vote. Since the consensus appears to be to preserve the status quo ante, there's not much to be done right now with respect to the article. There's no hurry in any case, these things take a few days to settle.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I never used the word "vote". Since when does discussion=vote? Xerton (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Xerton, these editors did discuss their opinions but it seems that you chose to not view them as "constructive." Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are only correct in that if you narrowly construe what I am asking the editors of this page to consider, which is that I feel the lede misframes the introduction to this article such that it's got a left-leaning pro-Yates POV; thus, I am attempting to ferret out support for improvements to that by means of examining alternative ideas for an improved lede. Xerton (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, when you open a section like this, it's for a formal expression of preference, i.e., vote. It's not a place to start the discussion over again, hoping for a different set of opinions from those you'd prefer to discount.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dershowitz is not a notable expert when it comes to anything related to current events or politics. Day to day, he's a media personality and highly erratic and volatile. His peer reviewed writings on legal questions are a different matter. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure such things can be accurately said about AD. I find him to be very candid and outspoken, but very sound in his legal reasoning. Did you read the page I linked to? His assessment is spot-on. Xerton (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you a notable legal expert? Glad you enjoy his columns. I suggest you find a commentator who finds this column significant to establish that it's anything worth considering for the article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying you should adopt my suggestions because I am suggesting them. Rather, I am asking you to consider the reasoning which I am offering and see if you agree with it. Thus, perhaps I should be more direct; please tell me yes or no: Are you 100% opposed to making any changes of any kind to the 2nd paragraph as it currently stands? If "no", then please think about what I am saying: I think the 2nd paragraph as currently formulated is too POV in Yates's favor. It verges on hagiographic adulation of Yates's resolve and it lacks context. Xerton (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have been more direct. Your opinion that Dershowitz' is "very sound in his legal reasoning" is not what's needed. We would need RS pointing to this opinion column and stating that. The fact is Dershowitz as media pundit is not Dershowitz the scholar. He's just like any other pundit, and not a very interesting one apparently becuase his political opinions, couched in legalisms, are not taken very seriously by anyone other than himself and his employers. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, 's personal opinion about Dershowitz's qualifications is worth exactly the same as 's opinion or mine, i.e. nothing. As a notable commenter on political and legal issues, his stance deserves a brief statement in the article body, under "Reactions", and I agree that it's not significant enough for the lead. But I disagree that we should look for further RS commenting positively on Dersh's opinion before we can include it: the man's notability and qualifications are documented by his Wikipedia article, that's enough to quote an attributed opinion of his. — JFG talk 04:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Deflection. He is not a notable political analyst. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Says who? — JFG talk 05:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - While Dershowitz's opinion may have a place in the article itself, we cannot get into the business of quoting one opinion of the other in the lede of someone else's biography. Dershowitz's opinion is not dispositive or conclusive of anything other than his opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, of course. There's a section on reactions, which notes responses of both support and dissent re: Yates' action. It, and not the lede, is the proper place for consideration of this, as I mentioned to Xerton on my talk page before discussion was opened here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SPECIFICO: "Dershowitz is not a notable expert when it comes to anything related to current events or politics." Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified Oppose – The Dershowitz opinion is indeed WP:UNDUE for the lede section, but it does belong in the "Reactions to her dismissal" section of the article body, per WP:BALANCE. — JFG talk 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to 2nd paragraph of article
Following the inauguration of Donald Trump and the departure of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Yates served as Acting Attorney General from January 20, 2017, until being fired by President Trump on January 30, 2017, following her instruction to the Justice Department that Trump's immigration-related executive order was neither defensible in court, nor upheld by the Constitution.

Xerton (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would we use a clearly-partisan opinion source (an editorial by a conservative magazine) to source a matter of undisputed fact? If the National Review's opinion here is notable, we could include it in a section on reactions to Yates' actions, but it is unsuitable as a reference for questions of fact about Yates' actions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You might have a point - but the larger issue to me at this time is that the current state of the 2nd paragraph is that it's POV. Xerton (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you change? The article lede currently expresses no opinion about the correctness of her argument, and if we were to include such expressions of opinion, we would be required to include multiple differing opinions, not just the opinion that she's wrong. I personally think such expressions of opinion belong in the article body, not the lede. Including the phrase "Some people thought Yates was right, others thought she was wrong" is not really an improvement, IMO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about my proposed edit, as shown in this section we are now conversing in, sans the NRO link? Xerton (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection to adding "President" before Trump, but I don't know why we would use the slangier "fired" rather than "dismissed" - the technical term for a federal appointee would actually be "removed" so if we were going to change it at all, that would be the right word to use. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The CNN citation currently used in this sentence of the article says "fires", so my suggestion of "fired" is the actual fact. So unless we replace the CNN link with something that says "removed" or "dismissed", we're diluting the WP:RS truth here. And therefore, are we substituting our individual editing perspective for the actual reliable source; and isn't that a WP:OR violation? Xerton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I have split this overly long sentence into three parts, which hopefully makes the paragraph clearer and more readable. — JFG talk 00:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it also changes the meaning. Did you not know that? I have restored the statement per cited source. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The original long-winded sentence was unclear as to what exactly Yates instructed. Thanks for your subsequent improvement. — JFG talk 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not address the problem, namely, that your edit -- although it shortened the sentences -- changed the meaning of the text. And any such change in meaning should not be a surprise to editors who see an edit summary about sentence structure. I'll just share my observation that this happens a lot with your edits and it's too bad. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be reading too much into my edits and their summaries. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. — JFG talk 03:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not responsive. You change the meaning to insert a POV. And you don't want us to read the POV? If it's unintentional then you should be more careful. Your text is what it is, and nobody is "reading into it". That kind of deflection is beneath you. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not think I changed the meaning by writing that Yates instructed the Justice Department "not to enforce" Trump's order; you made a more precise edit by copying exact wording from a source that she instructed the department "not to make legal arguments". Noticing that, I thanked you for the edit. Such step-by-step improvements by several editors are what Wikipedia is all about. Let's AGF on both sides and close the discussion. — JFG talk 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * JFG, your well reasoned explanation make eminent good sense to me.Xerton (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It might, eminently or not, but it doesn't happen to reflect the facts. There is a difference between declining to enforce and declining to defend in court against a challenge. This could be due to carelessness or insensitivity to the thrust of the language, but when the thrusts are uniformly in one direction, that interpretation is not particularly useful. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about a distinction without a difference here. Given the existing political and legal opposition to the ban at the time of its announcement, it's axiomatic that refusing to defend it against legal challenges is one and the same as refusing to enforce it. If it can't be enforced if it's defeated in court, then refusing to defend it is a refusal to allow it to be enforced. Even so, perhaps we might find some sources which support this proposed re-write? Xerton (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Letter from Sally Yates?
This article currently has an inserted image which is described as "Letter from Sally Yates explaining her view..." . I am concerned that this letter is not an original (it's a re-typeset reproduction?) or is otherwise lacking attribution. I recommend that we excise this image from this article until its provenance is better established. Xerton (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would we possibly doubt the provenance of a public-domain document obtained from the official website of the United States Department of Justice? You're going to need something a lot more than your "concerns" to justify this. Do you have evidence that it is not authentic? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the proof this image came from where you say it did?
 * My concern is that we are violating WP:UNDUE by inserting what is clearly an image of a re-typeset letter. And we are calling it her letter, not "the text" of her letter. Yates letter was never released to the public, only the press; see here . Thus, we do not have a copy of her letter and the image we have is not of the letter itself, but it's something which has been re-typeset; it's an ersatz letter.
 * Xerton (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is the article enhanced by adding an image of text to it? There are better ways to do callouts of text, if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One minute of work on your part would solve your quandary: here. There is nothing undue about including original primary-source document images. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point: There is no primary source for this "document" because this "document" was uploaded by it's creator; the actual Yates letter itself cannot be found in the form of a letter anywhere on the internet. Only the text of it, as reported in news articles, can be found. And unlike you, I dialog before I go around ripping things out of the article. Which is why I posted this here. Xerton (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite simply wrong. This document was not "uploaded by its creator," it's the original letter as provided to the press, via The New York Times, as evidenced above. Your statement that the Yates letter was never released to the public, only the press is a non sequitur. The letter was released to the press, which then publicly published it, and hence we have acquired it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your unevidenced edit that this document is not original. Once again, you're going to need a whole lot more than your unsupported personal opinion that the document is not authentic. You need to slow your roll and discuss things. According to The New York Times, this is an original document; again, as evidenced here. If you're suggesting that it's not original, you need to provide some actual evidence that's more than just "I said so." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You should go back and re-read the .pdf which the NYT displays in its inline frame. Here's the URL to the document itself . There is no attribution in the document itself. Thus, it cannot be reasonably inferred that this is an actual or verbatim copy of what was sent by Yates. We can report that the NYT is calling it that, but we cannot say it's that without actual attribution by and from the author. And my assertion that it's a re-typed ersatz letter is a more sound inference to draw given the universal practice of government officials signing their letters. If fact, it's a stretch to call it a letter, regardless of what NYT said. In the form which NYT displays it, it's an "unattributed document, in memo form, purportedly written by Sally Yates". Xerton (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions are very interesting. However, we have absolutely no reason to doubt that The New York Times (a gold-standard reliable source) is telling the truth here. You are not entitled to substitute your opinion for that of a reliable source.
 * There is no reason to attribute an undisputed factual statement published by a reliable source. If you have a reliable source which disputes the veracity of the letter, then we may have an issue which requires attribution to the NYT. If you cannot find any such source, then we do not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaving the merits of NYT's veracity aside, I am not claiming these are not Yates' words. Rather, I am stating the fact that the document which the NYT embedded into a page on its website via the means of Document Cloud does not in and of itself contain any attribution to Yates or proof that it's from Yates. Thus, it's not actually proven true that this is a copy of the letter itself. What is proven true, by virtue of our reliance on NYT as a RS, is the these are Yates' words. I would be satisfied with the us calling it "Text of letter from Sally Yates explaining her view of..." rather than "Letter from Sally Yates explaining her view of...". Xerton (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I have reverted several edits to the lede of the article; these include changes made without consensus to the wording, undue detail for the lede, as well as the improper replacement of a neutral word (argued) with a weasel word (asserted). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) In this context, "asserted" or "claimed" would be more accurate that "argued". That's because in the context of narratives which pertain to legal issues, one only "argues" in court and Yates did not argue this in court.
 * 2) You swooped in and reverted without seeking consensus first; might not your reversion be reasonably viewed as an act of bad faith?
 * 3) As per my edit summary (which you evidently ignored) the CNN citation we're using for this clearly states "Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban". Thus, I am restoring "fired".
 * Xerton (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Guidelines clearly deprecate the use of "asserted" or "claimed" as they carry connotations. "Argued" is a neutral statement. If you don't like "argued," you are free to propose a different, neutral word. And no, you need to become familiar with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You made a bold edit, it has been reverted, and now it's incumbent on you to gain consensus for those changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about "stated"? The word "argued" is misleading in this context. Xerton (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Stated is fine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted the addition of a confusing reference to unspecified "other executive orders" in the lede; the lede should be a summary of the article, and the article does not discuss "other executive orders." The article does not discuss any "other executive orders," and Yates did not comment on any "other executive orders." It would be inappropriate to insert unsourced speculation here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A preponderance of Reliable Sources state that Sally Yates was fired

 * Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban (CNN)
 * Sally Yates, Acting Attorney General Fired by Trump, Testifies on Flynn Saga (NBC)
 * Sally Yates, fired by Trump, calls on the nation to honor the rule of law (Washington Examiner)
 * Fired by Trump, former acting Attorney General Sally Yates to testify on Russia (Chicago Tribune)
 * Former DoJ chief Sally Yates on being fired by Trump (Financial Times)
 * This is how Sally Yates learned she was fired (The Week)
 * Trump has fired the acting attorney general who ordered Justice Dept. not to defend president's travel ban (Washington Post)
 * Per Google:
 * sally yates "fired" = 346,000
 * sally yates "dismissed" = 185,000
 * Xerton (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? "Dismissed" is appropriate encyclopedic tone, while "fired" is more colloquial and should be avoided. — JFG talk 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WRONG; you are inventing justifications for ignoring the established facts. Xerton (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a distinction without a difference. The consensus version uses the word "dismissed", and you have not demonstrated a consensus to change it to "fired", which means precisely the same thing in this context. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WRONG; I am exactly quoting the reliable sources. Quoting reliable sources trumps specious claims of a consensus which doesn't. Xerton (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't. The word "dismissed" is equally accurate, which makes this a stylistic choice rather than a factual issue. And if you don't have consensus to make the stylistic choice, you can't simply ram it through with endless reverts and bald declarations that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong; those reliable sources which I have quoted are staffed and managed by experts in the reporting of news with precise language. They all used "fired" and none used "dismissed". And that's because "fired" more accurately conveys the abruptness and harshness of how she was shown the door. You are wrongly trying to perfume an ugly situation. Her termination was ugly; it was a firing and it was accurately called that by news experts. The "stylistic choice" choice argument is meritless in this situation. Xerton (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Dismissed" is just as accurate and should be used for neutrality. This is an encyclopedia article, more specifically a WP:BLP, and we need to avoid using contentious terms. You'll need consensus before replacing the term. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 02:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The two words are not the same. Hence, by definition their meaning is not the same. And therefore, they cannot be (and are not) equally accurate. Not only that, but there's NOT ONE major news outlet which headline described this termination as "dismissed" or "dismissal". But almost all of them stated she was "fired". Either we abide by the accuracy of the actual primary sources (which I've cited), which are reliable, or we might as well toss WP:RS out the window. Where are your sources for "dismissed"? Xerton (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This matter has also been discussed at the Biographies of living people noticeboard, where several other editors also disagreed with Xerton. Also, Xerton has been temporarily blocked for edit warring over this issue. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sally Yates Questioned by Jeff Sessions.webm