Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States

message: Why is it a list/table of funding gaps instead of shutdowns?
Yes, there are notations about shutdowns in the table, but shouldn't it be structured to reflect shutdowns instead of funding gaps? --Ratha K (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 3: List/Table of U.S. government funding gaps 

message: washingtonpost 1 April 2017  
google hit list  --Neun-x (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  wanted: Update  (April 2017 / Trump)  

message: According to a few sources  , only five of the funding gaps prior to 1995 resulted in government shutdowns, in the sense of federal employees actually being furloughed.  Since sources differ as to whether the term "government shutdown" refers to the other gaps, I'm going to revise the article to be more specific about which meaning is applied to the term.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding gap != government shutdown 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Government shutdown in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213111528/http://www.ombwatch.org/node/2491 to http://www.ombwatch.org/node/2491
*Added  tag to http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1184382616242591.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just FYI, be ready to add a new section if a government shutdown happens beginning at 12:00 AM, January 20, 2018. It appears rather likely. Evieliam (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If a government shutdown does occur by the end of the day, then a new article may be warranted; it can be created at United States federal government shutdown of 2018, perhaps. Master of Time (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to get an early start, an article about the continuing resolution itself, Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, could be started now.  The text is at . Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article may be useful. LK (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The likelihood of another government shutdown 

message: Please don't imply without sources that there were federal government shutdowns under Jimmy Carter.  As this article makes clear, actual government shutdowns, as opposed to funding gaps, did not happen under Carter.  LK (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the 1980 shutdown that only affected the FTC did happen under Carter.  Some sources neglect to mention it because it was so small, but see    .  You are correct that all other funding gaps under Carter occured before the Civiletti opinion and did not lead to shutdowns.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed shutdown under Carter 

message: The article says that two-thirds of the house can override a presidential veto. But is this the two houses combined, two-thirds in the HR and senate separately or what? From the List of  gaps an actual override only happened in 1976 under Gerald Ford; all others eventually compromised (not this time?)  Hugo999 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, two thirds of the House of Representatives plus two thirds of the Senate. Given the usual partisan divisions, this is virtually impossible. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Overriding Presidential veto

message: "False claims and misrepresentations on this and other issues by White House Press Secretary Sanders, Vice President Mike Pence, President Trump himself, and others, have come to be regarded as hallmarks of his administration."
That is a personal opinion and is out of place on the shutdown page.  I added the NPOV tag as a result.  192.107.156.196 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the NPOV tag as the section that contain it and a lot of other fluff was removed in this edit.  NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I made an edit to remove the February 2018 funding gap from the list, because by the article's own distinction:
The edit was reverted by User:JRSpriggs () with the following justification: "This is the only place where this funding gap is explained, so we must keep it." This is not true. The entire content that was deleted can be found at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath.
Regardless, do we agree that
1. The list in this article should be consistent -- therefore, since it says it only includes funding gaps which lead to actual employee furloughs, it should not include other funding gaps.
2. There should be some place to include content on the February 9, 2018 funding gap. Currently, it is at United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_January_2018#Aftermath, which I fear is a bit of an obscure place. But it cannot be in this list unless we re-define the scope of the list. Do we want to create a new article for the Feb 9 funding gap? (Note that this page's Feb 9 funding gap section is also linked from List of United States federal funding gaps.
Thanks,
Cstanford.math (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that I reverted you. I was going through all the changes in the shutdown-related articles and I think that you must have made your changes while I was doing that. So when I tested the link from the funding gap article and it went nowhere, I assumed that you had just taken out that one section. I did not realize that you had added back the information in other places. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit dispute regarding the inclusion of the February 9, 2018 funding gap 

message: The page here is clearly showing favouritism. It's becoming very clear that Wikipedia is being run by very obstinate people. This is not an acceptable approach to an information website.
MontChevalier (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you perceive the article is biased, I encourage you to edit it to remove your perceived bias. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much bias on this page 

message: It needs a table or chart to show the number of days for each shutdown, something similar to this website having one: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html
The details are spent all over the page, in different paragraphs, so people have to read everything and then make notes of how long each shutdown lasted. It needs a quick at a glare table or chart to show each Shutdowns in one view. A table to allow viewers to change order, so showing in order of number of days, or in order by year, or by surname of Presidents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:48A9:D601:5064:9B64:B0BF:6323 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the one that been at the beginning of the List of federal shutdowns section since at least 2013?  Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need chart or table for quick and clear summary 

message: I must say I preferred the language/structure that existed prior to this major rewrite, but my reasons are so myriad that I lack the time/energy to enumerate them or make changes. Just my 2¢  soibangla (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of section for current shutdown 

message: Both parties held televised addresses on January 8: Trump rallied public support for funding a border wall, making border security the key talking point of his address to the nation, while both Pelosi and Schumer attempted to rally public support towards convincing the president to end the shutdown.
Current polling would tend to indicate that the President's "rallying", if that's what it was, was less than successful.
I'll leave it to others to impose neutrality to this section since I'm clearly incapabe of doing so.
 Mikeylito  ► talk 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is somewhat subtle, that absolutely should be changed. It implies that the president's efforts to rally were successful (that he did in fact rally public support), while the opposition party's efforts were mere attempts (that they only tried to); this is inaccurate considering that only a minority of the US supports the proposed border wall. If it hasn't been changed already, feel free to make the change quickly (or I could do it myself). I recommend simply saying something along the lines of "On January 8, Trump issued a televised address to the nation advocating for the construction of a wall, while Pelosi and Schumer issued a critical response the same day." No need to judge how well they rallied support using Wikipedia's voice, just describe what they did in simple and neutral terms. Considering that neither side budged on their positions (neither before nor after these televised addresses) it would be unnecessary to describe ad nauseum the positions that they took in these addresses. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I've added these changes myself Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018-2019 Shutdown: NPOV 

message: Quote from the archived requested move discussion by  "Indeed, if there are not objections, I might go take that redirect and write a basic start- or even stub-class article on Government shutdowns around the world."
I have no objections. Do you mean to remove the hard redirect, as I had suggested? Renerpho (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from "Government Shutdown" 

message: There's a discussion at Talk:Government shutdown about whether a failure to form a government in a parliamentary system (such as the 2007–11 Belgian political crisis) has been called a "government shutdown" in sufficiently reliable sources to cover them in that article.  More input is requested.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government shutdowns in Europe 

message: First of all, the estimated cost of the Trump Shutdowns being $11 billion were estimated costs to the economy (not the government).  Further, the estimates for economic impacts range all over the map.  In 2013 the White House (not the CBO) estimated that the "economic impact" would be $10 billion a week.
But these estimates vary widely, and again, it's not a "cost to the government", as there is no such thing outside of money that needs to be borrowed to cover past shortfalls.  Economic "costs" equate to "economic impacts", and you'll never gather enough variables to have that make any sense.  It's not a simple numbers game...those dollar amounts simply don't have enough of an intuitive meaning to be useful, other than to make people ignorant of how to gauge economic metrics say "oooooo, that's really bad".Tgm1024 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that cost to the government and cost to the economy are two different numbers.  The table currently has a column for the former but not the latter, though people keep mixing it up.  Cost to the government is a pretty specific number, it mostly consists of lost labor from employees who were furloughed plus lost fees (such as entrance fees for National Parks), and we generally have reliable sources on this.  You're right that cost to the economy is quite a lot harder to define, let alone produce a reliable number for.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Looking at the CBO report, on page 4, it says "about $3 billion represents compensation for furloughed employees".  On page 6, "as a result of some reduced activities by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that are meant to ensure taxpayers’ compliance with tax law, CBO estimates that tax revenues will be roughly $2 billion lower in fiscal year 2019 because of the shutdown."  So it looks like the total direct cost to government is  around $5 billion.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap the "Cost to Government" Column.  You're getting it all wrong. 

message: I don't know enough on the topic to do it myself, but it's ridiculous that the pages on specific shutdowns have basic details like what agencies are affected and the main page doesn't. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effects section needs a big expansion 

message: “stalemates within the government are much less likely, as the executive head of government (i.e. the prime minister) must be a member of the legislature majority”
I think this is no must. Minority governments do occur from time to time. E.g. from 2010 - 2012 in The Netherlands. Roel Schreurs (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Europe contains an incorrect statement?