Jump to content

Talk:2013 United States federal government shutdown

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Odg2vcLR (talk | contribs) at 13:33, 24 October 2013 (→Length of shutdown). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Liberal bias (or lack thereof)

There's been mention of "liberal bias" in the comments on the edit page to the main article, which has seemed reasonable non-partisan to me in its tone. Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An instance of bias in the current version is the sentence characterizing the shutdown as "GOP led". (I'll edit it out momentarily. It also has an improperly formed citation.) The GOP-controlled House sent a number of bills to the Senate, which could have approved them and sent them to the president, who could have signed them. The GOP is holding strong to a position (or positions), but the Senate is holding equally to its positions. This makes it inaccurate to characterize the shutdown as being instigated by either party. Earlier, I added a link to the general government shutdowns article, which discusses all 18 shutdowns since 1976. People can draw their conclusions from reviewing that history.
Oops. Duh. I neglected to sign the above. JimHarperDC (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-The Senate's position can hardly be considered equal when the Republican House are the ones who want to break from the status quo and demand the repeal of a passed law in exchange for the passing of a Continuing Resolution, while the Senate simply wants to pass a clean Continuing Resolution 142.161.97.237 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the House sought a law change, but this doesn't justify the characterization of the shutdown as being "GOP led." House Republicans and their supporters probably believe they are doing the right thing in pursuing their aims, and there is scant evidence (though plenty of opinion, of course!) that they were seeking a shutdown. By all means, detail the debate in a neutral way and let readers render their own judgments about whether the House acted in good faith or sought to lead a shutdown. JimHarperDC (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No appropriations were made in the Affordable Care Act so it's up to each congress to decide on the level of funding. And as the constitution gives the house the privilege of creating spending bills, it's their right to refuse to fund it. And as to breaking with the status quo, the Democrats did that with the ACA itself! That didn't stop them, though. Mc6809e (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The ACA is funded by mandatory continuing appropriations - which is why it is continuing to operate during the shutdown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Harper, when you said this:
It's true that the House sought a law change, but this doesn't justify the characterization of the shutdown as being "GOP led." House Republicans and their supporters probably believe they are doing the right thing in pursuing their aims, and there is scant evidence (though plenty of opinion, of course!) that they were seeking a shutdown.
you nailed it well. This is truly an emotionally charged topic, but I believe you've sliced through much of it perfectly.Tgm1024 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias et al.

My favorite so far has been the recent addition by a user who cited a Politco article to declare that this is the second GOP led shutdown since 1996. Wherein after reading the FIRST paragraph of the article Politico clearly states "It’s the first government shutdown since 1996". (Copy/Pasted). Thus any point regarding the existence of bias, that, holds esoteric, philosophical, or even opinion as the foundation; simply ignores the blatant bias that literally exists in this inaccurate misquote. (Missed signing) Webprgmr15 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Congress, Two Parts, House and Senate: For Foreigners and Rudimentary Americans

I'd be happy to explain it. This conflict is a result of two parties in the US Congress not being able to agree to pass a law to the President for signing. One "side" is the US Democrats (Blue), and "the other" is the Republicans (Red): AKA the GOP.

If the two "sides" (you might also remember these being called "Chambers"—they're different, but each "side" is currently in control of only one chamber) of Congress cannot agree whatsoever, nothing can be signed by the President, period. He cannot pass bills into law. This is different from a presidential veto where the President sends something back for reconsideration. In this instance, US government is literally paralyzed into inaction until concessions are made or "bipartisanship" is practiced.

By editing the main article to imply that Obama and the democrats are on one side, and the republicans on another...it simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the checks and balances system and how it works. If Congress itself cannot "pass laws" or "authorize a budget" the President cannot sign it because it does not exist for him/her to sign.71.91.170.94 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, Constitutionally speaking, but as the first few paragraphs of our own article on the presidency note, the POTUS is effectively in charge of his party's legislative agenda. Obama has made numerous statements regarding the impending shutdown, has negotiated with Republican leadership, etc. It would be highly misleading to say that he had no role in the conflict, regardless of the fact that he has no direct authority here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Reality has a well-known liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.12.26 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, Inaccuracy in "Preceding events and issues" Section

The second paragraph of the "Preceding events and issues" section is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The budget process leads up to the appropriations process, but it is not the lack of a budget that required a CR. It was Congress not having passed appropriations bills timely. Also, it was not the Senate that proposed the CR. The CR originated in the House (and the bill has bounced back and forth multiple times). The sources for this paragraph are largely left-leaning opinion pieces that argue a viewpoint about the motivations of the House's leadership. There's certainly a theory there that could be described as such, but it's far from a definitive account of why certain decisions were taken. I'd fix these things myself, but along with the lateness of the hour, I'd prefer to let the primary author of that language clean it up if he or she likes. JimHarperDC (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Health and Human Services

Great list, but I noticed that the Department of Health and Human Services isn't included. I found their Contingency Staffing Plan on hhs.gov, and they say that they're going to furlough 52% of their employees. I don't really know the code for linking very well, so I'll just post my reference here: http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2014/fy2014contingency_staffing_plan-rev2.pdf

I'm still a little wary of editing pages, so if anyone sees this and wants to add it, please do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havensfire (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is neither news, nor a crystal ball

Section outdated: As the topic is now a past event, it is outside the realm of WP:Crystal. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The economic impact section focuses on the economic impact of a possible longtime shut-down. This appears crystal to me. Likewise, the effect of departments sections say "will shut down"; shouldn't we rather say "has shut down" ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting what reliable sources have said about the potential for an economic impact is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL any more than reporting what reliable sources say about the hyperloop is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia often writes about things that may happen in the future, when sufficient reliable sources report on those projected or proposed events. As the policy states, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. There is no legitimate dispute that there will be some economic impact from the shutdown - you can't put 800,000 people out of work overnight and not have an impact on the economy. The only debate is what the level of impact will be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there will be an economic impact and that obviously belongs in the article. But speculations about the impact of a 2-3 week shut-down won't be very relevant anymore once we know how long the actual shut-down lasted and we have estimate for the actual economic loss/impact. So, I don't believe that pure speculations about the future have lasting encyclopedic value, except for noting shortly and generally that a long shut-down was expected to have high costs. I am not going to insist on removal here though. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it certainly is crystall ball. Just because a RS said it doesnt mean it has to be included on Wikipedia. It is merely spspeculation, WP does not write about what may happened in future, please show that (and it would be a cviolation of CRYSTAL)(also see OSE). Yes there will be SOEM economic impact, but without any economic impact (other than costing 300, a day) it is speculative to say WHAT that impact will be.
Also per BRD it was removed, till consensus is formed there is no need to restore it.(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
I strongly disagree with your application of BRD here. Your removal of the information was the bold action. Ryan Vesey 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so the sequence of events is absolutely clear, Lihaas originally removed the section referring to WP:CRYSTAL. In response, GabrielF started the section above to oppose and I reverted, under the rationale explained in that section. That is textbook BRD, except that Lihaas made no attempt to engage in discussion at that time. Lihaas then repeated the removal under the same rationale. In both cases the inclusion of the section is clearly the status quo, and the section removal is the Bold (and reverted) action that would require consensus to implement. - BanyanTree 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, crystal does not apply here for the same reason it does not apply for the possible effects of global warming. Sepsis II (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, BRD is the insertion of content, that removal is a reversion. How can you revert something by adding it?
You still have not explained WHY it misapplies to crystal. youve just stated it does.
I came right here to discuss and then removed it citing BRD, btw.
Nevertheless, you have not explained why it is not crystal. 1 OP did, then 2 others disagreed. CONVERSELY, instead of arguing, I explained exactly what was strong with the edit (as did the other user above). that there is NO content to the article, is is PURE speculation of what MAY happen. Nothing HAS happened.
As a compromise, perhaps cut the jargon, and move it to the economic section of REACTIONS (as that is what it is, a reaction, not an impact (the impact is speculationas it has not happened YET)). Then cut it down to something like analysts and financial advisors have suggested...
sUGESTING compromises isa lot better hthan attacking editors and accusing and seeking them wrong. There has been only this as a compromise solution...and you can read here that NO ONE has provided an attempt to find consensus by compromiseLihaas (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus here that you are wrong to apply WP:CRYSTAL here, and that your understanding of the policy is flawed. I would suggest that you stop edit-warring and discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have no understanding of what you are blindly reverting [1]. I did not remove any content. As mentioned above (and you should read it before blindly reverting), I am suggesting an alternative accommodation that KEEPS the content. The edit I cited above wshows that you readded redundant and DOUBLE content. (if its so difficlit then do a control+f and see the content is in there, with perhaps slight different wording.(Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
THIS IS ABJECTLY STUPID AND DUMB BEYOND BELIEF! and is the most obvious indication that nothing is read here, war is the first option. its quite clearly stated here that NO content was removed, there is now the SAME content listed twice on the page that any ctrl+f search can show. Yet if this was to reverted it would count as 3RR or some such shit because no one bothers to read/discuss but just wants one [blind][version to revert to per NPA and personality politics. Please see the damn page! THE SAME CONTENT IS ALREADY ON IT!!! And considering it was reverted to twice just cancels out any possible AGF which was thre the first time.
Further I have not reverted theice, because the edit that moved stuff in accommodation per this discussion did not REVERT ANYTHING. conetnet is still there(Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
That the shutdown has an economic impact is undisputed fact. The economic impact is already happening. There is no consensus to remove that section or split it into "reactions," whatever those are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE is disputing here that there is an economic impact. The disputeis WHAT the impact is.
Consensus is based ona ccomodation and compromise. that was what was changed and y9u wnet and quite clearly BLINDLY readded content.
Now if you care you can discuss this issue as per the questions posed. Because what the MEDIA say and analsysts suggest is REACTION/speculation (and if you knw anything about financial markets you wllknow it works on speculation_) and THAT is not fact on the ground.
That was amongst the most stupidest edits I've seen here. and ive been here for nearly 4-5 uears now, not a few months.(Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

I strongly object to moving the economic impact section under reactions. First, the economic impact is not a "reaction" in the same way that opinion polls or media reports are reactions. Second, it is an important aspect of the story and deserves its own top-level section. Third, these are not necessarily reactions. The source for Maryland tax revenues was published several days before the shutdown. Nor is the WP:CRYSTAL argument valid as that policy explicitly allows well-sourced, reasonable predictions of near-term events. GabrielF (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit requests for lead

"Obamacare" is not an appropriate descriptor for an encyclopedia, except when quoting people, statements like "(commonly known as Obamacare)", and similar.

  • Change "The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to Obamacare, passed it in revised form on Friday, September 27, 2013." to "The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on September 27, 2013." (it's missing an "and" as well)
  • Change "The Senate refused to pass the bill while it still had measures to delay Obamacare" to "The Senate refused to pass the bill while it still had measures to delay the Affordable Care Act"
  • "the two sides could not make a compromise bill" is also clunky. You don't "make" a bill. Change it to "pass", or some language like "reach a compromise ...".

Is it really necessary for this page to still be semi-protected?

Odg2vcLR (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Obamacare" is not an appropriate descriptor for an encyclopedia Then why does Barack Obama's PAC operate the Obamacare twitter account? https://twitter.com/obamacare Shii (tock) 21:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that Twitter was an encyclopedia. Of course Obama, his allies, and his opponents use Obamacare in everyday usage, as do I. None of us are encyclopedias, either. Consensus on pages like Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is to use PPACA/ACA, except when describing the term "Obamacare", or in quotations. Are you saying all of those pages should primarily use "Obamacare" instead? Odg2vcLR (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I'm saying, but it sounds like there are a lot of people upset about something Organizing for Change is not upset about. Shii (tock) 15:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I literally came to the talk page to ask why the usage of Obamacare, a term spurred by pure political playings, was being used on a theoretically encyclopedic article. All instances, except for the initial blurb of the common usage of the term Obamacare should be changed to refer to the plan as it was introduced and is legally referred to - The Affordable Care Act. Chainsol (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although "Obamacare" was coined by its enemies, it has come to be used by virtually everyone including Obama himself. It is similar to "Medicare" and Obama welcomed it as indicating that he cares about people. "Affordable Care Act", "Patient Protection Act", or full name "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" are simply too long to be used in casual conversation. More importantly, they beg the question of what the effect of the act is. Some conservatives have referred to it as the "Unaffordable Care Act". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "too long to be used in casual conversation" and that is Odg2vcLR's point. This is not a casual conversation, this is an encyclopedic article. "Some conservatives have referred to it as the "Unaffordable Care Act"." is completely irrelevant to the fact it should be named by its proper name. 46.18.96.82 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is in favor of using the proper name. It is commonly used; it is not an unknown. The fact that it has a nickname doesn't mean we have to use it. Both ACA and Obamacare are used in common parlance. Given that, I think the proper name wins out, especially as the latter is more commonly used as a pejorative than the former.204.65.34.128 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Obama calls it Obamacare doesn't mean some people shouldn't have a reason to be upset, but I'm in a third category. I don't think this article should have to defer to the consensus in the article on the Affordable Care Act; A short name should be preferred for WP:Concise, but using the abbreviations PPACA or ACA would be confusing in an article that doesn't focus on the PPACA/ACA. I think it should be introduced by it's official name, but referred to thereafter by a shorter, recognizable name, and I think Obamacare is the best available choice, albeit imperfect...
Which leads to my second point. The name shouldn't be perfect. After all, we use the name "People's Republic" in the China article, even though the intro makes it clear that it's a one-party communist state. We also use the name "National Socialist" in the Nazi article, even though they were socialist only in their early intellectual phase and became anti-communist once they were given power. The Nazi article also routinely refers to it's subject by it's nickname.
Therefore, I oppose. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To 46.18.96.82: The reason I mentioned "Unaffordable Care Act" is to illustrate that allowing its supporters to name it "Affordable Care Act" is at least as unfair as allowing its detractors to name it "Unaffordable Care Act". Calling it "affordable" is assuming a fact for which there is NO evidence; on the contrary, the evidence so far suggests that "unaffordable" is a better description. At least, "Obamacare" does not assume any fact other than it is supported by Obama (which it is) and that it has to do with healthcare (which it does). JRSpriggs (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

This article is now overly long. I suggest that per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should move the detail lists to separate articles. This article could then concentrate on being about the shutdown as a whole. Specifically I suggest the folowing:

I'm not set on those titles, so do suggest improvements. Also, the two proposed splits are independent so please don't support or oppose both just because you support or oppose one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you want to do something like mentioned just above. I'm for both your suggestions. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support splitting the list of agencies and I would also support including the other effects (non-profit organizations, Native Americans, etc.) in there too. I would oppose the reactions section being split off at this time, since I think it just looks worse because of the list of effects. Also, some of the content in the reactions could be merged with existing sections (like the "Domestic political" subsection with the "Attempts to restore funding" section or the "Debate over national park closures" with the "Department of Interior" section). - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maximus entirely.. That list is *huge*, and really affects the readability; it's tough to even get down to the reaction section. Nomader (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we take the "List of agencies and affected operations" section into a separate article and have a summary in this article, this article will not be overly long. We can group the six "Effect of..." / "Economic effect" sections as sub-sections under "Other effects". We can keep the "Reactions" section as it is not long. After the change, the navigation through the table of contents will be easy enough. Currently, even the table of contents is too long. Z22 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the first... not entirely sure the second needs to be done right now, but if the shutdown extends much longer and the reactions continue to pile up, it would probably be necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment given the complexity and uncertainty of the shutdown and the public's interest in knowing how the shutdown will affect things that they care about or rely on. Please see my more detailed comment above in the "Overdose on detailed departmental effects" section. GabrielF (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a proposal to delete any information, just a proposal to make it more accessible. This article would still contain a summary of the effects and the details for those that want them would still be available but wouldn't be in the way of those who only want a summary. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think a split on the first would make such information more easily accessible to someone trying to find out what is affected. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support a split for the effects. I think a more natural split would be to have an article Effects of the 2013 United States government shutdown that includes not only the federal government effects, but also the collection of short sections describing effects on other entities, with a summary retained here. I oppose a split of the reactions at this time, since it's not as overwhelmingly long as the effects, but this could change if the reactions section grows significantly in the future. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WP:NOTNEWS 18.51.3.206 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the length of this article only bothers me from an aesthetic angle; from a practical angle I have no trouble navigating by searching keywords, clicking links in the table of contents, or dragging my scroll bar. I guess it might be intimidating if I just wanted a quick skim-through of the table of contents to get an overview of the content, but the way it's indented makes it easy to ignore sections I'm not interested in. I hear GabrielF's point that the information is currently important, but if you're a directly affected citizen who wants details, clicking on a link labeled "List of affected government operations" at the top of the "Effect on federal government operations" section should get you there, though it should be renamed "Effects". As long as the consensus solution is a win-win.
On another note, I think the sections starting with "Effect..." that don't have any subsections should be combined into a section labeled "Other Effects". KinkyLipids (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far several supports (6-8) for splitting the first, and one opposed...If there aren't any further objections, I'll start that tomorrow (unless someone else does it). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate what I said above, I don't see any urgency for this move. We're above the recommended article length, but significantly below the length that would put us in Special:LongPages. By comparison, the length of this article is either equivalent to or less than the length of articles about other important American political events. We're at 148kB right now. Hillary Clinton presidential primary campaign, 2008 is at 202kB, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 is at 206kB, Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 is at 210kB, ‎Political positions of Mitt Romney is at 214kB, 2013 mass surveillance disclosures is at 315KB. Even the article Republican Party presidential debates, 2012 is at 95KB. Also, the situation is still very much in flux and we are seeing important government agencies either recall workers (e.g. DoD) or impose additional furloughs (e.g. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) on a daily basis. Even the shutdown of relatively minor agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be a massive news story in any other context.
I recognize that there is a difference between moving content and deleting it, but moving content to a list article which will require finding the link, clicking on it and then waiting for a page load will significantly reduce the accessibility of the information to our readers.
If impact on government section is too cumbersome, can we explore alternative ways of presenting the information before removing it from the article? If the table of contents is too lengthy, can we consider suppressing the agency names from the TOC? Might there be alternative ways to organize the information that would be more readable? Perhaps instead of one section per agency we might have sections that discuss impacts in specific areas (e.g. science or veterans).GabrielF (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about there being much more information to add is a good argument for the split. Going into detail about the effects on individual agencies is not appropriate for what should be a high-level article. This is the equivalent of United States presidential election, 2008 which has summaries of and links to the articles about individual campaigns and debates, etc. just as this should have equally accessible sub articles that go into the detail about individual aspects. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While correct that it's not one of the longest articles out there, it's much easier to split before it becomes one. That being said, per WP:SIZESPLIT, over 100KB should "almost certainly" be split. The problem is that there is so much information in the article on so many topics already that I think it'd be easier to find the specific content on a more detailed subpage. Note that on a split, it's not an outright removal of content. There would likely be the same top-level header called "Effects of the 2013 United States government shutdown" with a "see more" link, and a paragraph or two of summary. Anyone looking for the information would end up the same place and should be able to easily a) get the summary they want, or b) click the link for further details. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the affected agencies list to List of US federal government agencies and operations affected by the shutdown of 2013. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - I support splitting "Reactions" to Reactions_to_the_United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013 so long as a summary is left in the main article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" template

Section outdated: The shutdown ended today. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have readded the "Current" template,as the reason for removal given was, "Removed [']Current['], intended for articles edited by many on the same day," which, as I saw 42 changes (not including minor, bot or my edits) in a day, is obviously true.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon a more careful reading of the edit summary, you may notice that it said in addition: "Only two editors in the last five hours." Obviously, editors were not stepping on each other's edits at that time, hence the template was not needed at that time, and further, the later edits that day were merely two to three an hour. Rather handle-able.
    The purpose the {{current}} template was originally created for, and is presently used for, is to warn editors to not step on each other's edits because of present activity, and when that activity drops off, it is desirable to take this extraordinary template off of the page.
    For some historical perspective, the template was created for an occasion in which there were more than 400 edits in less than 30 hours on an article. This article has somewhere around one fifth or one quarter of that volume on a busy day, and although actively edited, is not, so far, suffering from editors stepping on each others edits for an astronomically phenomenal world event that draws such a significant volume of edits and editors similar to the occasion of the 2004 Madrid train bombings.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Current tag because it is an ongoing event that seems to last. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I don't think people are coming to Wikipedia to see if the shutdown has ended, and editors will be aware if it is current or not. I haven't had any edit conflict issues, and I think edit volume has been active but manageable (roughly 20 edits in the last 16 hours). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a current event. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservatives excited about shutting down government

The edit made by JRSpriggs here is both factually wrong and goes against the reliable source provided. The members of Congress quoted were not excited because they were blocking Obamacare - indeed, they were not blocking Obamacare and have not blocked Obamacare at any time. The article is very clear that the members of Congress were expressing excitement that they were about to take the action of shutting down the government in order to make a political point about Obamacare. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your own source [2] says, "On Saturday [Sept 28], conservatives rallied House Republicans around a plan to fund the government but delay the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature health-care law, for a year." [date] and emphasis added. They were happy because they naively believed that the Democrats would have no choice but to accept the Republican CR which would delay Obamacare while still funding the government. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than your fantasy that the Tea Party consists of nihilists, a more accurate view would be that they are like children who are trying to do the right thing and are being out-maneuvered by cynical adults (Democrat leaders) who are more dishonest and treacherous than they realize. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is not the place to debate our personal opinions about the shutdown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post says what it says, even according to the Mediaite rebuttal. "As it appeared in The Washington Post on Saturday, September 28th, before the shutdown went into effect, Bachmann’s quote did appear to refer to the inevitability of the government shutdown." [3] The Washington Post article states one thing, Bachmann states a different thing. We present each of those claims fairly. We cannot assert that Bachmann's claim is accurate and the Washington Post's claim is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the Washington Post is wrong in that article. What I am saying is that YOU are reading things into it which are not there. I am not familiar with the Mediate. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough diagrams (too much text)

This is getting to be a fairly long article. Text may eventually be summarized or separated out into other articles, but it would also be nice to have some more figures and diagrams if anyone cares to put some in. I found one that seemed pretty illustrative here: [[4]] The existing photos are nice, but don't really say much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC) yes, the article is too long. There was a dispute in 2013, a few paragraphs, it was resolved. This is not a newspaper or a blow by blow account.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider making your own diagrams. Alas, we cannot republish diagrams from most news sources since they are copyrighted.--Nowa (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could. I can do simple text edits of existing articles, but images and diagrams are a bit beyond my expertise. I can do Excel charts and stuff, but I don't even know what program to use to make an svg file (or whatever they are). If I get around to it I might do a bit of research as I'm guessing gimp can do it but I've never tried. Your advice is welcome and appreciated though. Cheers. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-CR bills

Hi! I found a source of updating information about the mini-CR bills the House has been passing to fund portions of the government, most of which have been blocked by the Senate. The source is Speaker Boehner's Official website. Obviously the language on the list is pro-Republican, but they can't lie about what was passed. Can someone incorporate this in a neutral way? It might be helpful to put it with the other data on mini-CRs and the House's strategy. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is undue weight on those bills as is. I notice that all of the individual pages for the bills are currently being debated for deletion here. Ideally I think the individual pages should be merged into a main article on all of the mini-CR bils and then this section could link to that article after a summary. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boehner's website will never be cited for facts on this subject. You couldn't have chosen a more biased and unreliable source. If his site makes it into this article it will be to show Boehner's opinions or political positions (with inline attribution, of course) and that's it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's what I meant to suggest - the page can be a good source of explanation of the Republican strategy and the rhetoric they are using. It's also an up-to-date list of which bills actually are mini-CRs, which is suggestive, if nothing else. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:NORUSH to get this information into our article. If the mini-CRs are sufficiently notable then there will be more reliable news stories about them in the coming days. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must stop lying

It is not good faith to accuse Wikipedia of outright "lying."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ok, might be lying in good faith, but still lying. See the introduction. The government has NOT shutdown. What has happened is large scale personnel furloughs. No department has closed. The EPA and Navy have not been abolished. Wikipedia should stop being so sloppy.

The other thing is that personnel are not losing pay. What they are suffering is a delay in paychecks. All government workers will essentially get a free paid vacation. This is a fact. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shutdown" is the term predominantly used by reliable sources. Per WP:COMMONNAME it should be the term we use here. It also accurately reflects the status of a great many government operations, which are either not running at all or running with only a skeleton crew. While it is possible that all government workers will be paid, that is up to Congress and congress has not made a decision. GabrielF (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "possible", it is fact. This is what the FDA is telling employees.

Also, if it is common to be sloppy, Wikipedia should not do the same and use the word "shutdown" in a sloppy manner. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2013 Not all reliable sources are inaccurate. In the UK, the word furlough is being used, an uncommon word in the UK Stephanie Bowman (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Wikipedia policy about not being sloppy. We operate on the the principle of verifiability, which means that we summarize the reliable sources. The overwhelming weight of reporters and news editors think it's a shutdown, so it's a shutdown. If you disagree then you're more than welcome to blog or tweet your views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FDA would be telling employees no such thing, period, and if you insist otherwise I would demand that you provide evidence. Such a statement would be illegal by current law. Only "exempt" employees who are continuing to work during the shutdown are actually guaranteed a paycheck. Those workers who have been furloughed are not guaranteed a paycheck. Historically, it is true that such workers have been paid for their furlough time — but Congress must approve such a measure and that has not yet happened.
I strenuously object to your characterization of this as "a free paid vacation." Federal workers want to be on the job, not sitting on the sideline for weeks waiting for Congress to get its act together.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanie Bowman is absolutely incorrect about the pay status of federal employees. The following is from today's Politico: "Health and life insurance benefits will continue for staffers, but retroactive pay for furloughed staffers remains in flux. The House has passed a bill giving back-pay to those workers, but it has not yet been taken up by the Senate. If the back pay bill does not become law those that worked during the shutdown will get paid, while those furloughed will not get paid for the sum of the shutdown, according to the memo." [5]
In addition to being the most common term used by reliable sources, the word shutdown is a completely appropriate description at the situation. The word shutdown accurately reflects the situation at many Federal agencies. Stephanie Bowman gives the example of the EPA. Yet the EPA is currently functioning with a staffing level of 7% and has suspended almost all of its operations.
I would strongly urge Stephanie Bowman to retract the accusation that Wikipedia is "lying".GabrielF (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a free agent and cannot in itself lie. Verifiable sources are what creates the article. And a partial shutdown is still a shutdown. I'm guessing Stephanie Bowman is simply trolling. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP falsely accusing me of trolling.

I agree that there is no media coverage over federal employees getting a free paid holiday. However, it is common knowledge that this will happen. It is fact that it has happened before. To deny it is biased writing.

A good compromise would not state that they are not paid but to either say that they have been paid after previous shutdowns have been resolved or that the status of their paycheck is temporarily on hold. As for the FDA, it is fact that an employee was told he would be paid later. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those who see WP:RS as an obstacle regularly fall back the "common knowledge" argument. "It's like saying the sky is WP:BLUE!" Sorry, we've heard it all before. There is a reason the news media hasn't said workers are getting a paid vacation, and if you believe that reason is pervasive media bias, then go start a blog about it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FDA "exempt" employees who are staying on the job to perform essential functions will be paid no matter what. But non-exempt employees, who have been furloughed, are not guaranteed back pay until a bill with such a provision is enacted into law. Such a provision is in the current compromise bill being voted on in the Senate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese editorial

I realize that the news organization is state-run, but is it appropriate to cite an editorial as a reaction of the PRC? I feel like "International Reactions" should be limited to the public reactions of the governments themselves. What is Xi Jinping's reaction? Ryan Vesey 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a reference?--Nowa (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the article might be an editorial, I see no reason not to think the editorial could be reflecting the opinions of the highest levels of the Chinese government. After all, it is a state-run news organization.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editorials are by definition opinion pieces of the author. Since it is a state-run news organization, it can be assumed that the opinion is not contrary to that of the state, but that doesn't make it an official position of the state. I'd be more comfortable with only including official statements in the section. Ryan Vesey 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, the ed isn't an official state position, but it might be as close as we get. That said, even if we decided it was more of a media position than an official one, the content doesn't need to be removed - it could simply be moved to the following "Media" subsection of the international reaction section.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with moving it under the Media subsection, I didn't even realize it was there. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furlough vs. paid leave

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/09/news/economy/federal-employees-pay/

This is a reliable source saying the federal employees will likely get a free paid vacation by getting paid for not working. The FDA is telling their employees not to worry because they'll get paid.

WP should not falsely state that employees are on unpaid furloughs. That is deceptive. All Wikipedia should do is report the facts honestly. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've really got to get better at writing section headers. I've modified this for you. Productive discussion will never result from a section titled "wikipedia is misleading, possibly due to politcal agenda". As of this point, workers were furloughed. If no further action is taken on the matter, they will not be paid, so what is stated in the article is accurate. The article does mention that the house passed a bill giving back pay to the employees. It is possible that the issue deserves its own section. Ryan Vesey 20:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that you linked makes no mention of the FDA or what it is telling its employees.GabrielF (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly don't agree with Stephanie Bowman's unproductive screed, I do agree that at this point we should stop saying that workers were furloughed without pay. The Senate deal gives back pay and that is likely to be the law of the land very soon. Saying "furloughed without pay" may be technically accurate, but will soon be misleading is misleading at this point. Moreover there's nothing inaccurate about saying they were simply "furloughed." After the Senate deal is passed we can explain pay was withheld during the furlough but back pay was given after it was over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "without pay" for now since it was redundant. The use of without pay seemed to give extra emphasis to that aspect which is certainly unnecessary given the discussion above. Ryan Vesey 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and agree that there needs to be a discussion of the fact that it was withheld somewhere in the article, because that is a significant impact on federal workers - the vast majority of whom are middle-class folks and for whom even missing one paycheck out of the regular cycle can work financial hardships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding events section II

This Section is blatantly inappropriate. It should never have been created. Let's not develop it any further.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This has to be one of the most putridly biased articles I've ever read. I thought Wikipedia held themselves to a higher standard than this. Honestly, what do you have to say for yourselves? "With funds from the billionaires Koch Brothers and conservative political action committees..." Do you know how many funds that Democrats have received behind this from organizations like George Soros, Goldman Sachs, et al, backing Democratic politicians that helped create the travesty you see before you? Talking points, talking points, on a freaking Wikipedia article. Get your heads together and make a decent article. This is a government shutdown, not a Wikimedia one. User:Decentman12 [[User talk:Decentman12] 18:11, 16 October 2013 (EST)

If you have suggestions for how the article can be improved, please feel free to make them.
If you are going to sling accusations of partisan bias while yourself exhibiting partisan bias, I will feel free to ignore you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to contribute to the article. Please try to avoid putting people down while you do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wording scertainly needs to changs as biased in accusing the Rep side. WP doesnt take sides#Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That section is extrememly biased. It basically takes one biased source and presents all the information in that source as factual. I have attributed it. Arzel (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't evaluated our text for bias, but generally speaking, factual content supported by reliable sources doesn't require attribution. What makes the Times article itself biased? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article is full of allegations against the Koch's and their supposed ties to various funding. The NYT in general is known to be biased, so I don't see the problem in attributing the allegations to the source rather than stating them as fact. Arzel (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one can always count on Arzel for a jolly fine edit war. So in response to your edit comment, which actually addresses a slightly separate issue, the Times article has a paragraph that starts, "The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, have been deeply involved with financing the overall effort." And, as to your comment that the Times "in general is known to be biased," that horse was been beaten to death long ago. Generally known according to what? The Book of Arzel? (That actually sounds biblical!) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding events section III

The subsection titles, and probably their contents, could use a rewrite. I'm not sure how to best rearrange/retitle the subsections, but right now it has three subsections: "The Meadows letter" (which seems to be mostly a "conservative pressure" section), "September" (which doesn't parallel the header titles very well), and "Change to the rules" (which is no longer a "preceding" event, but which is talking about events during the shutdown). Also, a cosmetic sidenote: at least on my browser, the timeline column is underlapping the collapsed letter signatories. Anyone see this/know how to fix it? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if anyone else wanted a significant rewrite earlier in the talk page, but I guess it got buried in all the new talk page sections. The preceding events section seems to be the aftermath of one editor's edit-bomb. I added the titles to give it at least some organization. Looks like another editor chopped off some of the excessive details. I'm thinking we should just take wikipedia's advice to "be bold!" and just edit at will. I noticed the overlap too when I switched to my computer; I added a <div style=width:"70%"></div> to fix it on my browser. You can adjust it if it needs more tweaking on yours. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the house rule change one level up, so it is now dis-associated from the "preceding" section. I also narrowed the show/hide sections - see if that's better. The subsection "September" might be improved by a thematic title; there were other preceding events for the prior two years, and even prior five or six years that are worth incorporating for context. See this retrospective example:
    Calmes, Jackie (October 15, 2013). "Signs Indicate That Obama's Debt Ceiling Gamble May Be Paying Off". The New York Times.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was thinking a thematic title would be better too, but couldn't think of a good one. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map of votes of Senators by state & Members of Congress by district

I'm wondering if any editors participating on this article are capable of creating and posting map/graphics of Senators and House districts with indications of votes for H.R. 2775, and also indicating party.
- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create automatic Archive

Can we please create an automatic Archive for this Talk Page? Not only is the Talk Page painfully long as of now, but also, several Discussion Sections essentially became obsolete the moment the shutdown ended this morning. Therefore, we should Auto-Archive this Talk Page and most of what is on here right now will soon move to Archives. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[6][7][8](Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Reader feedback: How the bill was rejected by...

64.166.239.205 posted this comment on 3 October 2013 (view all feedback).

How the bill was rejected by Congress. I wanted information on the member of Congress voting record on this issue.

Any thoughts?

[9]. And ofcourse the HOuse version is on that page. All on the record.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed above under the subheading "How Representatives & Senators Voted". The article page on H.J.Res. 59 has links to the official roll call votes and several other places where you can get specific voting data. I think the New York Times also has a page where they make formal maps of this stuff. I don't know much about making charts or maps of votes, so someone else would have to do that. It might take up a lot of space too, but if you want to do it, go right ahead.  :) The feedback was from October 3, so they can't have been referring to the new bill. That might also be worth adding vote data about. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about the bill that ended the shutdown

Hi all! I wanted to let you all know that there is already an article about the bill that ended the shutdown, if anyone wants to help edit/improve it. The Senate used a bill that had already been passed by the House (H.R. 2775), gutted the bill, amended it with new text (you can compare the various versions of the text here - the introduced version is about a paragraph and the enrolled (final) version is multiple pages), and then passed the bill "as amended." The House then passed the Senate's amended version (including a name change), and President Obama signed it, ending the shutdown. Anyway, an article already existed about the first version of the bill that passed the House in September. I have updated its infobox, put in the bare minimum of the procedural history, and adjusted the structure of the bill so that data about the original bill is clearly marked as original and we can add in new information afterwards. Antony-22 got this process started. IMHO, we should not delete info about the original version of the bill - it's part of the bill's history and an important (if a little strange) part of the American legislative process. I'd love to see other editors help out by adding in tons of details about the new bill, its provisions, the debate over it, etc. So, you're all invited to edit Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014! :) Good work on this article everyone - it's been really interesting to watch the creation and evolution of this article over the last two weeks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican changes in demands

Over the course of the shutdown, Republican - er - "demands" changed, from wanting the ACA defunded, then delayed, then, as those things seemed a lost cause, to repealing/delaying taxes on medical devices in the ACA to including a so-called "conscious clause" that would have allowed employers to opt out of paying for birth control as part of insurance plans. The article does not seem to touch on any of this, which seems to me a big hole. I'm sure there was a lot more than what I just mentioned. Does anyone have more detail that can be included?  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mix of defund and delay proposals, as well as the medical device tax[1] were before the shutdown. National Review has a list of debt limit proposals prepared before the shutdown as well.[2] Do they sound like the additional details you're referring too? I guess you could include the medical device tax pushed on 15 Oct,[3] but it seems like it was also initially proposed before the shutdown, and my source only names 3 House members. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Brian Faler; Brett Norman (29 September 2013). "Obamacare medical device tax assumes big role in spending battle Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obamacare-medical-device-tax-assumes-big-role-in-spending-battle-97536.html#ixzz2i0OLUQ4U". Politico. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ Strong, Jonathan (25 September 2013). "Revealed: The House GOP's Debt-Ceiling Plan". National Review. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
  3. ^ Viebeck, Elise (15 October 2013). "Conservatives want more time to fight against birth control mandate". The Hill. Retrieved 17 October 2013.

Proposal

With all due respect to the many editors putting so much work into this article, I feel the "shutdown" section as a whole needs a pretty significant rewrite. Personally, I don't find sections on the ACR rule change and the debt ceiling, with a list of mini-appropriations bills in between, to amount to an accessible overview of the shutdown. The closest thing we have to that is the timeline sidebar, which can only cover so much yet contains the type of information that should be the heart of the article. A chronological detailing of events would make a far more accessible overview of the topic and make it easier to incorporate events that don't fit into any current section. I think organizing and adding information into a week-by-week structure under "Events" would improve the article greatly. Thoughts?  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that revision is in order. But care should be taken to avoid leading readers to miss the forest for the trees. A tendency toward focusing heavily on the moment-by-moment details is natural with the shutdown having ended only a few hours ago. However, it would probably be helpful to consider what information will still be considered noteworthy a few months or even a few years from now (WP:10 year test). I think the article would be improved by putting more into explaining the history that led to the shutdown, the major events that transpired while it was underway, and its impact, with an eye on what kind of information readers will be looking for 6 months or 3 years from now. Dezastru (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of the content of this article is WP:RECENTISM and will have to be cut. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing the sections showing the legislators' positions and votes

Several sections of the article discuss the positions various members of the House and Senate took on whether to fund government operations with or without implementation of Obamacare, and how they voted on the key compromise bills that eventually ended the shutdown and temporarily suspended the debt limit. This is noteworthy information, and the kind of information that at least one reader asked for as a reader's feedback request. The article is already pretty long, and the lists of positions and votes makes it even longer. Collapsing these sections would make the article easier to read and to navigate for many if not most readers.

However, an editor has removed the collapsing formats, citing WP:MOSCO, which says: 

Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions. They especially should not be used to conceal "spoiler" information (see Wikipedia:Spoiler). Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, and in navboxes. When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS.

The positions and votes lists were not scrolling lists. Scrolling lists contain a scrollbar; the lists in this article did not. The collapsing format also did not completely conceal article content, which is what WP:MOSCO seeks to avoid. The collapsed sections in the body of the article adjacent to collapsed sections described the most important information, which is the overall numbers of legislators who took particular actions; the collapsed material just provided a fuller picture by listing the actions taken by individual legislators.

I think the article would be significantly improved by using the collapsible content format. If there is a concern that using that format would be burdensome for readers who are using devices that can't process javascript or CSS (something I couldn't confirm, as I could still see the information when running NoScript with Wikipedia whitelisted or with blocking CSS in my browser), why can't the collapsible format still be used here if its default is set to display rather than hide? Dezastru (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer these lists to be collapsed, or to be referred to as an expanded footnote-section. These lists interfere with readability, and few people will actually read the names the way they read sentences. The previous version of these show boxes were set at collapsed and width 50%, because another editor indicated that they interfered with the display of the timeline sidebar in their browser. See the section further above for details.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As MOS:COLLAPSE has it that, "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". These collapsible sections on this article are not used to conceal information. They are used according to the MOS by having the consolidated information (tally of votes and other details) covered in the main text. Therefore, we correctly follow the MOS. For readability, the default should be in collapsed form. There is nothing in MOS to go against the default setting of collapsible sections to be in the collapsed form. Z22 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the various lists of who signed/voted for what, if it's going to be in this article, it should be collapsed. However, I think they'd all be more appropriately removed from this article. If the bills/letters are really so important we need to list those involved, then it probably is deserving of its own article and the names can go there; if it's just a piece to understanding this article, then the names should probably be removed.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:28, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Neugebauer story

This seems way to overblown here. I recommend summarizing it down to a sentence or two, remaining content should go to his biography - and even there it is probably too much; it's Wikinews material, not Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise reached at his biography page was to move the material here, largely because of weighting issues - his biography at the moment is pretty doggone thin and this is about the single most notable thing he's been involved in as a politician. It really isn't "Wikinews material" - the incident was a significant touchstone of the shutdown and was widely remarked upon. There might be some trims to be made but I would strenuously object to cutting it to "a sentence or two." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Piotrus per WP:NOTNEWS. A "compromise" reached at another page has no bearing here, as there's no rule saying that everything has a place somewhere in the encyclopedia. In fact, WP:NOTEVERYTHING says just the opposite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cruz pressure

One sentence of the lead currently reads: "The Republican-led House of Representatives, in part pressured by conservative senators such as Ted Cruz[4] and conservative groups such as Heritage Action[5][6][7]" [4]: Barro, Josh (September 17, 2013). "Ted Cruz Is Making Life Miserable For House Republicans". Business Insider.

  • I removed the part about Cruz with the comment: "lead: source is ambiguous about exactly what Cruz pressured Republicans to do, insufficient to support such a politically charged statement"
  • Mbinebri restored it with the comment: "Restoring bit to lead: BI source is not ambiguous at all in stating Cruz pressured his party into a 'defund Obamacare' strategy"

I agree the source says Cruz pressured House Republicans to pursue a "defund Obamacare" strategy, but that's not the same thing as pressuring them to tie "defend Obamacare" effort to the government shutdown, as our article currently says. That's the ambiguity I was referring to in my edit comment. I realize it's a fine distinction but it's an important one. I think we should be particularly careful regarding such matters as it's extremely politically charged, there's lots of finger pointing going on right now, and we're regularly being accused of political bias both on the talk page and in the reader comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit mistaken. The sentence at issue reads: The Republican-led House of Representatives, in part pressured by conservative senators such as Ted Cruz[4] and conservative groups such as Heritage Action,[5][6][7] offered several continuing resolutions with language delaying or defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"). The lead does not explicitly state a tie between the "defund Obamacare" strategy and the shutdown (although I'm sure many sources can be found to do that - such as this, which references "Ted Cruz’s push to use a shutdown to defund Obamacare") but rather subsequently states that the political fighting over the attempt to defund Obamacare helped lead to the shutdown.
I also really don't see such a statement to be so highly politically charged. The media has repeatedly referred to Cruz as the face/leader of the shutdown and defunding strategy, and it's not like Cruz has shied away from his role in all this. In fact, he seems pretty proud of it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the Republicans wanted to do was stop Obamacare (repeal, delay, defund implementation, cut way pieces like the individual mandate or the medical device tax, or whatever they could do against it). It was the Democrats who chose to shutdown the government to ensure that they got their way. So objectively, the many reports that the Republicans shutdown the government are false, and I would argue intentionally false. To see the truth of what I am saying, just look at the sequence of legislation being passed or blocked in the House and the Senate. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#FORUM.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed I can see what you mean. I'm still concerned that the sentence implies that Cruz specifically pressured House Republicans to "offer several continuing resolutions..." which isn't supported by Cruz; Cruz's pressure was more generalized than that. In response to your more general query, I'm worried Cruz is being scapegoated to deflect blame from House Republicans. In any case this isn't a burning issue to me so I'm ok with leaving it as is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-shutdown analyses

The era of post-shutdown analysis, criticism and recrimination has arrived. Anticipated: published reviews of actions, Republican, Democratic, Presidential, and of outside political PACs, non-profit Thinktanks, their funding, planning, strategy and future, with copious links to past published articles providing historical context and content. The Republican actors have come up for criticism, yet the reputation of the Democratic actors, the House, and the Senate have declined on this event as well. Likely outcome here: a comprehensive survey section, describing that analysis, the context and history of shutdown-events such as these, and their consequences. As the published commentary arrives days and weeks and months after the event, I invite others to add references below, in anticipation of the expansion the article. Template {{cite news}} is welcome and suggested.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Nice research! Call the section "Aftermath". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. media reactions

It would be useful to note what positions the editorial boards of major news organizations (such as major newspapers) took on the politics of the shutdown. Can we get a list of which news organizations to include going? Dezastru (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the article, or for talk page discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we develop a list here on the Talk page that would be the basis for a few lines in the article discussing the positions taken by major news organizations' editorial boards. Otherwise, there will be the inevitable claims that the list selected for inclusion is biased. Dezastru (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably limit ourselves to newspaper editorials. There might be claims of inherent bias in that decision, but other media outlets generally don't publish their positions on these sorts of matters. Below is a list that comes from here (a PoliSci professor the Columbia Journalism Review). (Fill in as appropriate.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • New York Times
  • Washington Post
  • Wall Street Journal
  • Los Angeles Times
  • Dallas Morning News
  • Chicago Tribune
  • Boston Globe
  • San Jose Mercury News
  • Tampa Bay Times
  • The Sun
  • Philadelphia Inquirer
  • The Oregonian
  • USA Today
  • Seattle Times
  • Newsday
  • The News & Observer
  • Star Tribune
  • Miami Herald
  • Atlanta Journal-Constitution
  • Orange County Register
  • Sacramento Bee


That seems a fair list. There isn't space to cover all of them, so which 6 or so should be mentioned in the article? Dezastru (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LAT, Washington Times, USA Today. Any objections? Dezastru (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two issues. First, we shouldn't pre-decide the list of newspapers, as some editorial boards may not have weighed in, others may have taken less notable positions, and others may be difficult to summarize. Second, if we are going to pre-decide the list of newspapers, we should go straight down the list above, as the Columbia Journalism Review had these ranked. (The Washington Times also wasn't on their list.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times *IS* listed on that same page as the first item under the heading "Of Special Interest". JRSpriggs (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article length, and the pruning thereof

Ways to shorten the article, and why:

This shutdown was only a small part of a much larger and now decades' long political discussion and contention. The article will get longer in describing the context and past events and decisions leading up to the shut down, and longer by describing the aftermath and consequences and reactions to the shutdown.

Some possible choices towards shortening the article:

  • Much of the section about Effects, both domestic and international can be a stand-alone article, and the details were most revelent during the event, though all effects are indications of how the many months planning that led to the non-existence of a successful continuing resolution failed to take the slightest notice of the effects.
  • The national parks closures debates could also be a stand-alone article. Obviously some legislators don't have much concept of what the Antideficiency Act means when there are no appropriations.

Other suggestions? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length of shutdown

The shutdown spanned 17 calendar days (Oct 1 - Oct 17). I changed the lead back to reflect that, since it'd been changed to note the end date as Oct 16. Now part of the lead has been changed to awkwardly note "16-days and one-half hour" instead of "17-day", which seems a bit excessive. To me, it seems irrelevant whether Obama signed the bill at 12:30am (as he did) or if he'd signed it at 11pm. (Where does one draw the line to decide part of a day isn't a day? 1 hour? 6 hours? It doesn't seem like it's possible to reasonably draw that line.) But there's some contention over the length, so I thought I would try to address it here. For the lead itself, I think we should just state 17 days, with the existing explanation of when it was signed at the end of the lead. Odg2vcLR (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a controversial subject, whatever we do should be supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources say 16 days.

Dezastru (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, though the end date (but not duration, since that's reasonably rounded down) still seems technically incorrect to me. But we do have the explanation of when it was actually signed in the lead, so I think that's sufficient. Thanks for digging up those sources. Odg2vcLR (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph in the lede discussing Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014

With the benefit of hindsight, I think the following paragraph can be trimmed from the lede. The preceding paragraph already makes the essential point that there were significant disagreements between the House and the Senate, the Republicans and the Democrats, over whether to fund a continuing resolution. 

The deadlock centered on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2013.[11] The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on September 27, 2013.[11] The House reinstated the Senate-removed measures, and passed it again in the early morning hours on September 29.[11] The Senate declined to pass the bill with measures to delay the Affordable Care Act, and the two legislative houses did not develop a compromise bill by the end of September 30, 2013, causing the federal government to shut down due to a lack of appropriated funds at the start of the new 2014 federal fiscal year.

Dezastru (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above is a pretty good summary, without too much detail. The paragraph preceding it could be cut down. Ted Cruz mostly was just talk and grand standing, and completely ineffectual. The conservative groups may have had pressure, but the House Members were on their own in their decisions and votes, and those outside groups could be left out of the lede too. The Senate passing amended resolutions is covered in the above paragraph, and could be dropped in the below paragraph as well. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC) -- Here is that prior paragraph at the moment:[reply]
A "funding gap" was created when the two chambers of Congress failed to agree to an appropriations continuing resolution. The Republican-led House of Representatives, in part pressured by conservative senators such as Ted Cruz[4] and conservative groups such as Heritage Action,[5][6][7] offered several continuing resolutions with language delaying or defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"). The Democratic-led Senate passed several amended continuing resolutions for maintaining funding at then-current sequestration levels with no additional conditions. Political fights over this and other issues between the House on one side and President Barack Obama and the Senate on the other led to a budget impasse which threatened massive disruption.[8][9][10]

I think you have it backwards. Most readers won't care (or remember) what the dates were on which the original CR bill was passed by the House and then rejected by the Senate and then passed again by the House, which is what the paragrah I am proposing to delete focuses on. Matter of fact, I bet even most of the involved legislators and the journalists who have been covering this story won't recall or care what those dates were 3 months from now. What readers will care about is the big picture, which is what the other paragraph ("The Republican-led House of Representatives, in part pressured by conservative senators such as Ted Cruz[4] and conservative groups such as Heritage Action,[5][6][7] offered several continuing resolutions ...") describes. We can debate whether Ted Cruz should be mentioned in the lede (personally, I believe most sources have identified Cruz's actions as playing an essential role in the shutdown), but the fact that the shutdown was a result of disagreements between the political parties should clearly be mentioned in the lede. The line that begins "The Democratic-led Senate passed several amended continuing resolutions" might be revised, perhaps to say the Senate rejected the House's proposals and stripped out the measures related to the ACA, as in the other paragraph. Dezastru (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lede does not suffer much by dropping most of both paragraphs. Then it might benefit from a couple sentences about the claimed and then changing issues - The Affordable Care Act, the deficit, and the ultimately agreed changes and pork. Let the article body later on name names and outside groups.
    Here's an example, my sandbox edit version, with only subtraction (I merely used 
    <!--  -->
    to hide the existing text, which you can see if you click on the edit tab.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_United_States_federal_government_shutdown&oldid=578546619"