Talk:2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
2019
January starts in less than 36 hours and thus the shutdown will NOT end in December. So I changed the title. Whether or not Trump caves on thursday or it goes on until March, the title will remain valid. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently, User:Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) objects to the new title for some reason and will not explain why? What would be a better one? If there's no consensus by this afternoon, I'll change it back to the new title.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would oppose moving the article since the shutdown has not yet lasted into 2019. It would be inappropriate to move it until we actually hit 2019. We can afford to wait a day or two. Moving the page prematurely would probably violate WP:Crystal. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not only that, but we should also include the month of 2018, to avoid implying any overlap with other shutdowns of 2018.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think United States federal government shutdown of December 2018–January 2019 would be good for the sake of internal consistency in the title. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd prefer United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019. It's still distinct from United States federal government shutdown of January 2018, and we can add a hatnote pointing to that article. Also, we don't know that the shutdown will end in January. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- If the shutdown continues beyond January, then it can be moved as needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Move completed, as it's now 2019 !! !0I0000100110010101101110! !! (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- If the shutdown continues beyond January, then it can be moved as needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd prefer United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019. It's still distinct from United States federal government shutdown of January 2018, and we can add a hatnote pointing to that article. Also, we don't know that the shutdown will end in January. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think United States federal government shutdown of December 2018–January 2019 would be good for the sake of internal consistency in the title. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not only that, but we should also include the month of 2018, to avoid implying any overlap with other shutdowns of 2018.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would oppose moving the article since the shutdown has not yet lasted into 2019. It would be inappropriate to move it until we actually hit 2019. We can afford to wait a day or two. Moving the page prematurely would probably violate WP:Crystal. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"Partial"
Why does neither the title nor the lede indicate that this is only a partial government shutdown? Only a third as many federal workers are affected as were in the last full government shutdown. bd2412 T 03:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is pointless. Most shutdowns are only partial, so to say it is redundant. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- How small would a shutdown need to be to mention that? 1/4 of the government? 1/10? Absent an accurate representation of the scope of the shutdown, readers are liable to come away with the incorrect impression that all shutdowns are identical. bd2412 T 03:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, the January 2018 shutdown was also referred to in the media as a partial government shutdown. Even if none of the annual appropriations bills are passed, activities with mandatory (permanent) funds never shut down, nor do "essential" activities. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- How small would a shutdown need to be to mention that? 1/4 of the government? 1/10? Absent an accurate representation of the scope of the shutdown, readers are liable to come away with the incorrect impression that all shutdowns are identical. bd2412 T 03:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Belongs in the body, and I would recommend a table format as previously seen. Does not belong in title and should not be in lead unless this becomes a major part of the story (or the lead is one of those running amok). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. A table would be nice, if it lists all shutdowns and gives the percentage of funding lost in each case. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Images
the following images could be imported:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/afge/albums/72157702268403302
Victor Grigas (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The first three could be of value to demonstrate real world examples of the shutdown.. The last album doesn't really seem to offer anything of value that text can't. ShimonChai (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Reactions section
Rather than expand it, I chose to remove it. If there is a reaction that is truly noteworthy than go ahead and re-create it, but detailing the usual blame game offers no value. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is a standard section for articles of this type. As it is, reactions were getting strewn randomly throughout the article; I've separated them into their own section so it's easier to decide what stays and what goes. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Old requested move 11 January 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Including multiple pages per Madrenergic. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 18:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 18:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 → 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown – A few weeks ago, consensus determined that event dates should go before the article in the subject, i.e. 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. I believe this page should be moved to comply with this. Thanks. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 16:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree - Putting the date first sounds more natural and is shorter. Seems like common sense to me. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - If this is the consensus, I think it might be worth expanding the RM discussion to include United States federal government shutdown of 1980, United States federal government shutdown of 1990, United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996, United States federal government shutdown of 2013, and United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 for the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY, considering they are very similar topics. —Madrenergictalk 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – The current proposal is incorrect as per MOS:DASH and MOS:DATERANGE. It should be: 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Changed per IJBall programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 17:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Video of Schumer and Pelosi's response
There's a video of Trump's Oval Office speech, is there a video of Schumer and Pelosi's response that we can use as well? Dcfc1988 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've looked and every one i've found is watermarked and not public domain or cc licensed. Feel free to look ! Victor Grigas (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Poll numbers wrong
The poll numbers in the article do not match the cited polls. Erikm67 (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid proseline and oversectioning
Let's try to avoid WP:Proseline (a timeline formatted as prose). We don't need to include the minutiae of what happened on each and every day. Also, please try to avoid having sections that contain only one paragraph, since they break up the text too much. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Effectiveness of a wall & political aspects
Is this the right article to discuss whether a wall is worthwhile or not, along with political views of the wall? If not, where do other editors suggest this sort of content would go? Essentially, the evidence is that (contrary to Trump's claims): There is no crisis other than created by Trump; most Americans don't support wall; immigrants are not more likely to commit crimes than native born; the wall won't stop drugs or illegal immigrants, which enter through legal entry points (ports and gates in existing barriers); and there is much better use of $5.7 billion for border security than physical structures. In other words, Trump's request for a wall is arguably mainly political and symbolic, not because we actually need one.
- "The total number of people apprehended for illegally crossing the southern U.S. border has been steadily falling for almost two decades. It's a long-term trend that sociologists, economists and federal officials have been tracking for years."[1]
- "A minority of voters agree with Trump’s description of a crisis of illegal immigration at the southern border. There’s only tepid support for the wall he wants to build there. Voters are opposed to shutting down the government to extract the funds for the wall’s construction — and more blame Trump and the GOP for the shutdown than Democrats."[2]
- "President Donald Trump says that his proposed wall along the Mexico border “will stop much of the drugs from pouring into this country.” We cannot predict the future, but the fact is that most illicit drugs pass undetected through legal ports of entry."[3]
- "We started by checking out the 2015 National Academy of Sciences study Villaraigosa cited. It found: "Immigrants are in fact much less likely to commit crime than natives, and the presence of large numbers of immigrants seems to lower crime rates." The study added that "This disparity also holds for young men most likely to be undocumented immigrants: Mexican, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan men." It continued: "Today, the belief that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes is perpetuated by ‘issue entrepreneurs’ who promote the immigrant-crime connection in order to drive restrictionist immigration policy."[4] Farcaster (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Farcaster: I think a brief mention of this could be relevant, since the dispute about the wall is why the shutdown is happening in the first place, and it could help establish context. But the more in-depth stuff might be a better fit for the Mexico–United States barrier article. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
For it to be a balanced discussion you would have to quote conservative sources to meet Wikipedia's Neutrality guidelines. The four sources you name are all considered to be liberal sources.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Factcheck.org and PolitiFact are not liberal sources. 2. Neutrality guidelines do not say that we need the same number of liberal sources and conservative sources. WP:FALSEBALANCE HotdogPi 18:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I always appreciate a little satire. Facts, not alternative facts.Farcaster (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:HotdogPi 1. Studies say they lean liberal. 2. Lack of any conservative sources is at best factually short and at worst dishonest. NPOV says include all significant views, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, so as Degen Earthfast mentioned it can't be balanced discussion with just liberal sources. He did not call for equal number though, BALANCE may be 5 conservative items versus 4 liberal ones with maybe 3 neutral bits -- it would be whatever the external prominence is. And really it should be zero 'talking points' because those are by design low-fact slanted selections. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please share those "studies" that say all four of those sources lean liberal, not that it matters. Facts from credible sources should be included in Wikipedia. Outside the economic statistical agencies and CBO, there is no "true neutral" source. If I add facts from these sources, others can balance them.Farcaster (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, NPOV for ‘no neutral RS exists’ would have been to include right wing RS, notably missing, in proportion to prominence. And for neutral I suggest BBC.com to approximate a disinterested party. They admit to being center-left, but are restrained about it and have a distance from the fray. As for your desire to see studies, I would offer the GMU piece vs Fact-check.org. Less formal than studies are DataViz mappings or poll results for easier digestion. These four have pretty clear reputations of being liberal or left wing. Not far-left, but still lacks BALANCE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please share those "studies" that say all four of those sources lean liberal, not that it matters. Facts from credible sources should be included in Wikipedia. Outside the economic statistical agencies and CBO, there is no "true neutral" source. If I add facts from these sources, others can balance them.Farcaster (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:HotdogPi 1. Studies say they lean liberal. 2. Lack of any conservative sources is at best factually short and at worst dishonest. NPOV says include all significant views, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, so as Degen Earthfast mentioned it can't be balanced discussion with just liberal sources. He did not call for equal number though, BALANCE may be 5 conservative items versus 4 liberal ones with maybe 3 neutral bits -- it would be whatever the external prominence is. And really it should be zero 'talking points' because those are by design low-fact slanted selections. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
No, this is not the correct vehicle for speculation and bias. People use Wikipedia for factual information. Claims about if the "wall" is needed or what % of Americans support this or that belong on Infowars or MSNBC, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.207.58 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Farcaster No, this is the article for material about the shutdown. That material seems all WP:OFFTOPIC of the article. You may try to insert it at Trump border wall but be advised it also seems to be WP:SOAPBOX spin often called 'False' and in WP terms 'contentious' leading into further back and forth reenacting an online debate of dubious points. Folks might add on to those points
- 'due to the border construction in the last 20 years, including 100+ miles of wall built during the Trump administration, crossings have been steadily declining';
- or 'a majority of voters are willing to have or want a wall' ('CBP chiefs strongly endorse a wall... etc); or
- 'while calling for a wall to stop border drugs, Trump also called for more port security to close that avenue'; or
- 'the number of illegal aliens committed murder here is..'. Alternatively, folks might offer up alternative facts such as Schumer was strongly for a border wall, or crime including violent crime has risen due to ... And it might even start pulling out the inflammatory ones.
- So - offtopic, and even at the border wall article seems just a good set anyway. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- How can the effectiveness of a wall be off-topic when it is the reason for the shutdown?Farcaster (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because the "effectiveness" of the proposed border wall is 100% speculation and opinion. Any source accompanying text about the so-called effectiveness or lack thereof is 100% speculation and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.207.58 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- First, "speculation and opinion" by experts does not make something off-topic. Second, there is science to border security; some things work better than others. For example, a union representing the CBP argued it was much more useful to reducing illegal immigration to punish employers than build walls.[1]Farcaster (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also because effectiveness seems factually just not a part of the events and participants speech. “Immoral” exists, as ‘Essential’ exists - but for the shutdown topic it is the reason for shutdown and discussions are basically things other than that — about $5.6billion vs $2.7 “slush money”, steel vs concrete, harm to employees, declaration of emergency, etcetera. Those are main topic areas ... “wall effectiveness” fact-free assertions and anti-assertions logically aren’t part of the shutdown or it’s consequences. Power politics yes, engineering logic no. (There were minor tidbits about Acosta inadvertently showing a wall works, and the bit about folks climbing over the existing (non-wall) border during the press event at wall prototype competition. But those are trivia and again just not about the shutdown.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because the "effectiveness" of the proposed border wall is 100% speculation and opinion. Any source accompanying text about the so-called effectiveness or lack thereof is 100% speculation and opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.207.58 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- How can the effectiveness of a wall be off-topic when it is the reason for the shutdown?Farcaster (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
What to do about timezones?
The UTC date is now January 12, so the lede now inconsistently claims that the shutdown is 22 days old and also that it's "tied with" the 21-day shutdown. I'm not sure if I should remove the "tied with" claim or convert the date to Eastern Time and leave it. --NYKevin 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The relevant time zone is Washington, DC time. One complete day of the shutdown ends at midnight EST. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I guess you could replace October 27, 2024
{{today (mdy)}}with October 27, 2024 EDT{{time|EST|df=mdy|dateonly=yes|hide-refresh=yes|unlink-tz=yes}}but I have no idea how you would replace{{ordinal|{{duration in days|22 December 2018}}}}with a time zone aware version. -- Ununseti (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Done: {{duration in days}} takes a second parameter, so the math is all right now. --NYKevin 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)- Just follow the cites - say it is the longest, exceeding the 21 days of the 1995 shutdown, ... do not include a moving number at all. While it's shiny technically, it's also OR. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: Reliable sources are using moving clocks. See for example the Washington Post's front page. Basic arithmetic is not original research. --NYKevin 19:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:NYKevin mmm still on no (a) That’s not addressing the point of predominantly cites say longest, they may state a fixed number but do not run moving numbers. (b) Not even sure a website non-article feature can BE a cite or pass WP:V, as it isn’t part of an article or title. It seems a sensationalist bit of shiny that is seldom seen, and so ... perhaps add (c) that ‘sensationalism’ strike against it. WP:CALC perhaps does not apply because obvious though it may be, this isn’t an agreed “consensus” or “meaningful reflection of sources” nor is it nor a fixed calculation. I’m thinking there isn’t a WP policy on active content or way to cite to code ... might be worth a community ask ... raises a puzzle though of why is it possible unless intended for use, and if so where’s the guidance? The story is “longest”, sub point that the next one down is 1995, drop the moving numbers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- What are you even getting at? Your comment reads like a stream of consciousness and I simply cannot understand your argument. If you don't agree with WP:CALC and think that {{age in days}} should not be used anywhere in the wiki , please open an RfC to that effect. If you're trying to make some kind of argument which is specific to this article, rather than a generic argument against all forms of automatically-updating numbers, I'm afraid I have not understood you at all. --NYKevin 05:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:NYKevin mmm still on no (a) That’s not addressing the point of predominantly cites say longest, they may state a fixed number but do not run moving numbers. (b) Not even sure a website non-article feature can BE a cite or pass WP:V, as it isn’t part of an article or title. It seems a sensationalist bit of shiny that is seldom seen, and so ... perhaps add (c) that ‘sensationalism’ strike against it. WP:CALC perhaps does not apply because obvious though it may be, this isn’t an agreed “consensus” or “meaningful reflection of sources” nor is it nor a fixed calculation. I’m thinking there isn’t a WP policy on active content or way to cite to code ... might be worth a community ask ... raises a puzzle though of why is it possible unless intended for use, and if so where’s the guidance? The story is “longest”, sub point that the next one down is 1995, drop the moving numbers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: Reliable sources are using moving clocks. See for example the Washington Post's front page. Basic arithmetic is not original research. --NYKevin 19:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Down payment
The lead should state clearly that the $5.7 billion is only a down payment. Maybe, next year, Donald Trump will ask for $15 billion.--2601:C4:C080:81C:FDDA:2F16:29AA:E14C (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Would you care to provide a source on this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.146.1 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:OFFTOPIC as not about this years shutdown. Also seems like (a) WP:CRYSTAL speculations there, and (b) the impracticality of starting ‘what might come next year’ —a bottomless topic not practical to get into. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. You have no sources because it isn't true. HAL333 00:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Trump is demanding $5 billion as a down payment on construction of a huge wall..." --2601:C4:C080:81C:FD7D:9C2B:DC46:C7B1 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Airport music
Is this actually a thing? It was recently removed from the article here by an IP saying Removed blatantly untrue statement about TSA employees blasting explicit lyrics at a SINGLE airport (JFK). Per TSA, TSA does not have access to the airport sound system. (https://people.com/travel/tsa-officers-playing-explicit-rap-jfk-airport-government-shutdown/). In addition, none of the 3 cites, one of which includes profanity, are from a credible eyewitness journalist; instead, they are reports of public eyewitness unverified accounts
. I have found several sources on it but should it be included?[1][2][3][4] PackMecEng (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't relevant. An effect on federal workers caused by a partial government shutdown is not them playing music. This was a one-off in a single airport.HAL333 00:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- If TSA screeners are so disturbed by the shutdown that they have decided to torture passengers with offensive music, then that is worthy of inclusion in this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you even read your sources? “TSA doesn’t have access to the public address system at JFK. I have been advised that the system is accessed by the individual operators and the [Port Authority of New York and New Jersey].” It wasn't the TSA, and it doesn't matter. This simply isn't notable. There also is no video from it, and the only sources are from random people on twitter. HAL333 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know if it is worthy of inclusion but there is some back and forth from the People article on if they do actually have access or if it was just played locally at a terminal.
the Port Authority told them that TSA officers and other airport employees are able to choose the music played at certain terminals
which the TSA rep then denied as well. So it is disputed if they had access. PackMecEng (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know if it is worthy of inclusion but there is some back and forth from the People article on if they do actually have access or if it was just played locally at a terminal.
- Did you even read your sources? “TSA doesn’t have access to the public address system at JFK. I have been advised that the system is accessed by the individual operators and the [Port Authority of New York and New Jersey].” It wasn't the TSA, and it doesn't matter. This simply isn't notable. There also is no video from it, and the only sources are from random people on twitter. HAL333 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Leave out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, leave it out. It's not relevant to a non-tabloidesque encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Nate Silver's 16 Jan summary of polling
I added text on Trump's approval polling but it was deleted. I think it may have been inadvertently deleted.[5] Pinging MrX. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no problem with citing polling information from Nate Silver, but let's do better than
"Over the course of the shutdown, Trump's approval rating declined and his approval rating increased."
- MrX 🖋- The latter half should've been "disapproval rating". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- That makes a lot more sense.- MrX 🖋 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- The latter half should've been "disapproval rating". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
State department video
Hi, I'd like to add this video to the pre-shutdown section, I believe it's fully appropriate if it starts at 29:09, because it's an official statement from the state department.
Victor Grigas (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Victorgrigas I would generally prefer not having video unless it is notably prominent as shown by mentions, and fits in with the text. What about this particular video relates to the text ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem particularily relevant or important. HAL333 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggests adding it under 'External links'.- MrX 🖋 14:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 11 January 2019
 | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 28 January 2019. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move all, with two digits for consecutive years. -- tariqabjotu 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 → 2018–2019 United States federal government shutdown
- United States federal government shutdown of 1980 → 1980 United States federal government shutdown
- United States federal government shutdown of 1990 → 1990 United States federal government shutdown
- United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996 → 1995–1996 United States federal government shutdowns
- United States federal government shutdown of 2013 → 2013 United States federal government shutdown
- United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 → January 2018 United States federal government shutdown
– A few weeks ago, consensus determined that event dates should go before the article in the subject, i.e. 2018 United States House of Representatives elections. I believe this page should be moved to comply with this. Thanks. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest putting these through (speedy move), since they are unlikely to be controversial and this page is very visible at the moment. A week does not seem necessary in this case. However, this article can be retitled 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown and United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996 can be retitled 1995–96 United States federal government shutdowns per the consecutive years rule at MOS:DATERANGE. Note also that the 1995–96 version should be plural. Dekimasuよ! 20:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Slight Oppose only because of year-listing, then speedy move, per Dekimasu. This should be '2018-19' etc. Wikipedia style is to provide full years if not consecutive, and partial years if consecutive. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support if that's the standard. According to MOS:DATERANGE, "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC." So 1995–1996 and 2018–2019 are the correct targets. I echo that the 1995–1996 article covers two shutdowns, so it should remain plural; I've made this change above. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) Antony-22 and Impru20, MOS:DATERANGE contains the specific exception that "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years...." In my experience, two years are generally used in the case of consecutive years. See, for example, this link which shows 2000 such instances of "2018–19" in article titles. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't require it, and in the context of an article title I think it's better to be more formal. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support move to proposed titles as per WP:NCE and per MOS:DOB (with a specific mention to this RFC, where it was determined that the four-digit style should be preferred). Impru20talk 01:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the close of the linked RfC states that "applications such as sports seasons, fiscal years, and consecutive years use the two-year date range convention without problems. These applications can continue to do so." Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: Indeed, it is allowed, but it is not the preferred form (specially, as here we are referring to (1) an article title; and (2) a non-seasonal event). MOS:DOB itself clearly states that
the range's end year is usually given in full
. It may be used for consecutive years, but it is not to be used by default, and there should be a strong local consensus for it as the RfC closing comment refers. Impru20talk 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)- In my experience, when these issues are discussed the result favors using the two-digit forms. See, for example, my experience in closing Talk:1788–89 United States presidential election, which was reversed to two years as soon as it went to four. Regardless, it would be unfortunate for the perfect to be the enemy of the good here, and I still support moving these pages speedily. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Speedy. Either 4 digits or 2 digits works for me. If I had to choose, I would say 4 digits, because unlike sport seasons and whatnot, there isn't really an firmly established convention for this kind of topic, so might as well go with the less ambiguous option. Also, "2018-2019 government shutdown" yields ~935 search results, whereas "2018-19 government shutdown" yields ~412 search results, so 4 digits might be marginally better for searchability. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support 2018-2019 is the adjective used to describe when it happened we're not using Spanish so the adjective should come first :D. One slight note however would be that if we change this page to stay consistent we'd also have to change the pages: United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996 and all the others which I know is suggested already just thought I'd mention it. --Bluecrab2 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: As they are consecutive years, I think the date ranges should be formatted as "2018–19" as WP:DATERANGE permits. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support full four digit date range (2018-2019), provided that the current title becomes a permanent redirect.- MrX 🖋 11:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy move, though I prefer "2018-19" to be the target instead. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- ...and I prefer "1995-96" to be the target for that instead. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and looks better. Nixinova T C 05:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support This makes sense to me and will make the title more consistent with other articles. Speedy move should work, a week is not necessary. 63.157.13.131 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Date first is the correct format, although it should be 2018-19 Byconcept (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support To keep a proper format. Mariogoods (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Date first. It's more immediately relevant to the passing Wikipedian. Frevangelion (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support more concise. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support More concise and consistent with titles such as Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign and 2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash (just for examples). Geolodus (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support keep everything consistent MrMineHeads (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The aforementioned RCA was a bit controversial. It also never not suggested that the format be applied for anything other than elections, and even then not every type of election. Even in the example article for elections, at least one user was confused as to the change.. As this is a current affairs article, I do suggest some form of WP:RSBREAKING to delay making a decision at this time (even if WP:RSBREAKING is about reliable sources). Finally, to review a portion of WP:TITLECHANGES, "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that... the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles;" Sorry for being the lone dissenter on this issue, I just want to ensure we have a bit more examination of some the facts behind Wikipedia Policy before we do something like a speedy support. Thank you all for your time. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this is not useful, since it would (probably) automatically redirct to this article. Jackotothemax (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Concise, also leads to less confusion.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support It is more logical and better worded, if the date is in front. HAL333 21:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Eplained
"On January 16, Pelosi sent a letter to Trump that eplained the House is unavailable for the State of the Union Address scheduled for January 29" Explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.94.205 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Congress voice vote from January 17
This video exists in case it is useful in illustrating the article . 2601:647:5800:A046:F9F7:E326:8A6A:F213 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019
 | This edit request to 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a typo where it says "np" instead of "no" EVERY NAME IS TAKEN99 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Good catch. Bradv🍁 14:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking ahead...
Looking ahead, it is likely that the government will be shutdown yet again on February 15, following the president's comments on shutting down the government again or using a state of emergency if Congress fails to pass a budget. Do we think we are going to include that shutdown in the same Wikipedia page or start a new one? Best regards. DoctorSpeedWant to talk? 15:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- This contribution needs to be added in the chronological order. I'm moving it to the foot of the page. The length of the addition to the encyclopedia will influence just what article it ends up in; "https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/opinions/pelosi-brought-trump-to-his-knees-zelizer/index.html Now that the government has reopened for at least three weeks, negotiations will follow, depending on how well the parties focus on their respective goals." If they work it out, the additional text for the article could be short. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Here is a list of the current national emergencies which require annual renewal: [6], under the National Emergencies Act --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- More on the post-shutdown Senate-House conference committee: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/427163-post-shutdown-negotiations-look-brutal-for-trump --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019
| | This edit request to 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
199.230.119.34 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Under the category "Protests and Lawsuits," I think the article would be improved by linking to some of the major media coverage of the lawsuit. I suggest adding a footnote to the following sentence: "Shortly after the protests, the American Federation of Government Employees sued the Trump administration to challenge the arrangements for work without pay during the shutdown." Here is the suggested article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/08/how-justice-is-being-put-hold-until-government-shutdown-ends/?utm_term=.00f3b7fec33e 199.230.119.34 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. This information is already in the article, under the section "Protests and lawsuits". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Unanimity is an illusion
Regarding the resolution of the shutdown, the article says that the Houses of Congress "unanimously passed the funding measure by voice vote". Even though the sources say "unanimous", I am sure that this is not correct. For example, one day earlier (Thursday), Tom Cotton and Mike Lee both voted against both the Trump plan and the Democratic plan (which was essentially what Trump agreed to one day later). They would not have changed their minds in just one day. Typically, when a measure is passed by a voice vote no one bothers to say either "Aye" or "Nay". The chair simply assumes the result which is preferred by the Speaker or Majority Leader. If no one bothers to ask for a recorded vote, then the number of members opposed will never be known. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's interesting, I didn't know that, but it explains the video above where you can't hear anyone saying "aye" or "nay". In effect it is "unanimous" if no one asks for a recorded vote. I agree that "unanimous" is either incorrect or superfluous, and in either case I have removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If there is another government shutdown
I was wondering if the government shuts down again in a few weeks than would it be a continuation of this shutdown or an entirely new shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:400:114F:D48A:906E:9C0:8F12 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be considered a continuation (see 1995–96 United States federal government shutdowns). MSG17 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah it would be a continuation of this article. It would be due to the same reason, and make these three weeks an interruption of sorts. HAL333 23:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Video from Jan 19
Victor Grigas (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- No this article already has enough Files on the sides. HAL333 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Another video
This was a speech from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 1-16-2019 2601:647:5800:A046:F9F7:E326:8A6A:F213 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not needed or neccessary HAL333 23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
$6 billion lost by US economy
- CNN tells that "the US economy lost at least $6 billion during the shutdown, according to an estimate from S&P Global Economics" (thanks to whom??!) This should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is 11 billion according to Congressional Budget Office [7]... My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe both and neither - the S&P Global Economics says $6 Billion to the U.S. economy -- the CBO $11 billion figure includes cost to the Government, effect on the economy, and indirect costs. But CBO says $3 Billion is the amount permanently lost report, NBC coverage Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Who determines what workers are essential?
Does anyone know what provision of the Antideficiency Act (or other law) provides for the designation of "essential" personnel; that is, workers who have to report without pay? Who determines what conditions must be satisfied? What penalties are imposed against someone who does not report, even if they're not enforced? Has this provision ever been challenged in court? (Say under the 13th amendment?)
If it's not in Wikipedia already, where can I research it? (Somewhere there's got to be the text of the law itself, if nothing else.) My guess is that, for each department or agency affected, someone in the agency itself determines who is essential and who is not, under some guidelines. What guidelines? Someone determined 40,000 IRS workers were essential two weeks ago but before then, they were furloughed (and possibly collecting unemployment).
I think that this will become more and more important, if the shutdown continues for two, three or six months more. What if the shutdown continues for more than a year and every federal employee, including the armed forces, doesn't get paid? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I found this. It cites the "Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs". ShimonChai (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not explicitly in the Antideficiency Act. I think it originated in the 1980/1981 Civiletti opinions that changed the interpretation of the Antideficiency Act to require shutdowns in the first place. This CRS report might be a good starting point for research. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- OPM guidance says each agency determines, though they call it 'excepted'. To stand up in court, it's likely the agency has some preexisting policies/guides and has it identified by position, requires you confirm being informed when you take the job, and then they give notification when it happens ... You know, being the government there is a process and forms ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2019 (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) 10:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Split article to "Effects of the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown" and "Reactions to the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown"
- 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.
Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to new pages entitled Effects of the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown and Reactions to the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, the article is over 100 kB in "all", but it's 58 kB in readable prose size. Per WP:ARTICLESIZE, an article of this length may need to be split, but it may not. I suspect that there's plenty that can be trimmed after the WP:RECENTISM passes, so I'll oppose a split at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose at this time. I don't favor atomizing content unless necessary. Editing in the normal course should be sufficient to reduce article size to the extent necessary. Neutralitytalk 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. The existing content in the article should be made more concise, with as much duplication weeded out as possible. This would result in a single article of manageable size. That would be far preferable to splitting content across multiple articles, which results in difficulty co-ordinating what should be on which page, in the edge cases, and requires inevitably duplicating some boilerplate and contextual content across all the pages concerned, leading to much lower manageability and concision overall. Zazpot (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
FCC Update
Hi mods, I changed the tense on the closure of the FCC and added the info that Ajit Pai will not go to the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show. I didn't add the citation as I'd hate to do it incorrectly but here is proof and link https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/3/18167311/ajit-pai-fcc-ces-19-consumer-electronics-government-shutdown
I also added a link to this page on the wiki article about furlough's although I didn't style quite correctly like the other links to other government shutdowns involving furloughs.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holdenpi (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)