Talk:2013 United States federal government shutdown/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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)

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)
  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)

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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
WP:NOT#FORUM.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

"Speaker John A. Boehner sought to assure his conference on Tuesday that the “Hastert rule” is still regular practice, on the heels of breaking it for the third time this Congress."
"Steny Hoyer is quoted in this article about the Republican strategy meeting: “They are in a difficult position,“because a significant number of their caucus wants to hold hostage something that they shouldn’t be taking hostage. … There are some who want to use it as a bludgeon accomplish their demands, which they think they cannot accomplish by other means.”
  • Hayes, Stephen F. (October 7, 2013). "What Cruz Wrought". The Weekly Standard. No. Vol. 19, No. 05. {{cite news}}: |issue= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Newhauser, Daniel (October 28, 2013). "House GOP Course Change". CQ Weekly. Congressional Quarterly. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)


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

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)

To add to the article, or for talk page discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

  • 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
  • Washington Times (Added by JRSpriggs but not on prof's list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC))


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)

I propose NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LAT, Washington Times, USA Today. Any objections? Dezastru (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
The reason to identify a list in advance is to reduce the risk of appearing to have made the selections based on bias for or against a particular editorial position. If there are problems with the choice of a particular newspaper, that one can be dropped. While I've basically gone down the list in the proposal above, with the addition of USA Today because it is a very prominent national newspaper while many of the others are locals, a disadvantage with strictly following the list by rank is that doing so tends to favor newspapers of the very largest metropolitan areas (out of a list that almost by definition already favors the largest metropolitan areas). Does that matter? Inclusion of the Washington Times could help provide balance, since several of the others, with the exception of the WSJ, tend to be viewed as being less conservative-leaning. Dezastru (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand the concern but limiting ourselves to particular viewers (i.e. editorial boards) without first examining the diversity of viewpoints seems to be a fundamental violation of WP:WEIGHT, whose central tenant is that all significant viewpoints (not viewers) should be represented. Additionally, if we are going to limit ourselves, we're stumbling into a minefield as soon as we depart from an established list like the CJR's. Adding the Washington Times to represent the conservative wing would artificially give undue weight to the conservative wing. And I believe the Washington Post editorial board has traditionally been seen as center-right. (Remember that editorial boards sometimes have a different political bias than newsroom editorial staffs.) If we're going with the top newspapers, then we should stick with the top newspapers rather than using a mix of top newspapers plus non-top newspapers with a particular political bias. That would definitely be a non-neutrial approach. Now, if we want to go by newspapers with national circulations, rather than by "top" newspapers, then that would be acceptable to me as well. If we're going that route then we should limit ourselves to the WSJ, the NY Times, and USA Today. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Yes, "Of Special Interest" (among several other newspapers, unordered) rather than one of the "21 Best in the United States" according to the CJR. In other words, the Washington Times isn't one of the 21 best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
A couple of points. That list was originally published in 1999, correct? Maybe it's no longer as relevant as it once may have been (Since that time, Murdoch bought the WSJ, for example; in 1999, digital readership was only in its infancy; many editors have changed in the interim, etc.) And we are specifically focusing on the editorial positions, not the newsgathering/reporting functions; when the list was created, were they also focusing on the quality/influence of the editorials or on news reporting or a combination? Dezastru (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
No idea, but it's the best I could find. Here's another tidbit, however. The Club for Growth calls the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, and the Chicago Tribune not only the "most fiscally conservative newspapers" in their states, but also ones that have "an overall editorial distaste for government intervention in the private sector." So that's 3 of the top 6. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
And if we go by circulation statistics, the top 6 are the WSJ, USA Today, the NY Times, the LA Times, the SJ Mercury-News, and the NY Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The list I proposed largely follows the current supposed highest readership for the newspapers overall. We should avoid having too many newspapers from a single city or general region (NYT PLUS WSJ PLUS NY Daily News PLUS NY Post; or LAT PLUS SanJose Mercury-News). If you don't like Washington Times we could try Chicago Tribune, which tends to lean conservative and somewhat represents the Midwest region. Dezastru (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more strongly I feel we should look at the editorials themselves before deciding which ones to include, per WP:WEIGHT. And we shouldn't limit ourselves to newspaper editorials; we should include all opinions in the mix, including other media sources too, including columnists, magazines, TV personalities, and talk radio. Walling off newspaper editorials is artificial. Not to say this exercise wasn't useful; it certainly was, to me at least. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, (a) you were the one who said we should limit ourselves to newspapers. We can certainly include a variety of news organizations. Newspapers editorial boards' positions should be in the mix, since they are a well-defined group and continue to play a notable role in the public discourse. Also note that the media section already includes some other (non-editorial boards') opinions. (b) I didn't mean that we should not look at the editorials themselves in deciding what to include. I started the thread so that we could agree at the outset on what content to cover rather than for me (or someone else) to waste time writing something up only to have people come attack it saying it's biased. If we can have a discussion here from the beginning, then maybe we can save a lot of time by avoiding multiple rewrites and edit warring. Dezastru (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit it, I'm guilty of changing my mind from time to time. And in my experience, claims of bias and multiple rewrites are part-and-parcel in the process of achieving consensus. There's just no avoiding it. But, having a list of prominent media outlets is a useful research guide. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Most sources say 16 days.

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

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)

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)

  • 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:
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)

  • 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)
That's worse than what we already have because it doesn't mention that there were political conflicts at the heart of the shutdown, which a large part of the article describes. Dezastru (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The lead likely summarizes less than half of the article as it stands, despite WP:LEAD stating all important points should be touched on. Removing the core of the shutdown conflict would really hinder an understanding of the topic based on the lead, which is the only thing a lot of visitors will read. If anything can go, I would say it's the explanation of the ACA's financing at the end. It seems more like an extended footnote than information crucial to the shutdown's understanding.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My intended most recent point is not that my sandbox draft is complete, which I indicated it was not, but to demonstrate the potential that both mentioned paragraphs are not needed, given the paragraphs of context now existing in the lede. I agree that there is desirable an indication of who the groups or factions of people are, and brief points of view and changing goals.

    I wish to note that as soon as one name is mentioned, it becomes desirable to mention many names, and collectively as editors, it becomes a lot more challenging to agree to a lede. The obvious key players are those that participated in the agreement, the leadership such as Boehner, Reid, McConnnell, Obama. Then there is a panoply of Minority and Majority leaders, and faction leadership and grandstanders, which includes Cruz. Although Cruz had a lot of air time, he did not actually delay anything, since he did not conduct a filibuster, and voted against the procedural motion he spent hours advocating for, and his "pressure" debatable, entirely ineffectual in the body he is a member of, and not measurable in the House, who have an entire caucus influencing each other.

    I suggest it is sufficient for the lede to mention as briefly as possible faction, party and various intended objectives, as they may have been at various points, and let the article deal with the details and names.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Ted Cruz and associates?

Why is there no mention of Ted Cruz. Honestly when we look back on this 20-40 years from now we want to know what people thought and who was probably responsible. Why are we catering to stopping the so called 'liberal bias' when the facts point towards Tea Party people like Ted Cruz and associates? If Conservatives caused the shutdown it is NOT bias to say they did. Just like if the Obama administration caused 7 trillion in extra debt it is NOT bias to say they did. This is too crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.239.214 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Cruz? He's mentioned 12 times in the article, including once in the lead section, and we even have a photo of him. Are we reading the same thing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
18 times currently, if you include footnotes and captions. However, your premise is wrong. The Democrats caused the shutdown. See Thomas Sowell's comments. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

election 2013

tea party lost one, which is indicative a month after shutdown(Lihaas (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)).

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Budget Negotiators Seek Limited Deal as Opposition Mounts(Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).

Section on Effect on Native Americans

The original paragraph had accurate and useful information, but arbitrarily presented 3 tribes that were affected by the shutdown, using information from a NY Times article, as if they were the main native populations affected. I have changed the wording to show that these are simply examples of the widespread effects of the shutdown on many communities, and also added some additional information to round out the existing examples. Nodero (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_United_States_federal_government_shutdown/Archive_3&oldid=1080935632"