Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown

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

Additional shutdown[edit]

Two notes in case we get another shutdown tonight or later. First, we should cover all shutdowns this fiscal year in this article and not create a new one. The precedent for this is the two 1995-6 shutdowns, which are covered in the same article. Second, there's some reporting that there might only be a funding lapse for a few hours if the House approves the bill after midnight. In this case there may be no furloughs, in which case it would by a strict definition not actually be a shutdown, and we should consider how to describe it. See, for example, the box on p. 2 of this Congressional Research Service report. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The issues are unrelated. A vote slowdown by one senator over deficits is completely different than the filibuster over DACA related legislation. --DHeyward (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's true right now, but if the House doesn't pass the bill before working hours today, the DACA dispute will also be relevant to this funding gap. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it's over. --DHeyward (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to United States federal government shutdowns of 2018, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal government shutdown of 2018 → United States federal government shutdowns of 2018 – Being a little bold and premature here, but it seems like there will be another shutdown today/early tomorrow so the title will have to change to be consistent with United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996. Unless we're going to create another article for a shutdown that will likely only be a few hours long, this will probably be the best option. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. If/when it happens I would be on board. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To be able to roll the new shutdown stuff into here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: I wouldn't support this unless a shutdown does happen, but at this point, it seems fairly likely, so I'm just getting the ball rolling for the move. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but the title has to reflect the content and because of that I cannot vote yes yet. So if it happens it could be entirely appropriate to do the move. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until 9AM. Let’s wait to see if there are any furloughs, otherwise it’s just a funding gap and not strictly a shutdown. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still oppose This is a technical point, but this was a funding gap and not a shutdown since there were no furloughs, and my preference is that this gap should be covered here but in an "Aftermath" section. The Congressional Budget Office has a good explanation in this report: "Are a Funding Gap and a Shutdown the Same Thing? No; although a shutdown may result from a funding gap, the two events are distinct. This is because a funding gap may result in a shutdown of affected projects or activities in some instances but not others. For example, if a funding gap is of a short duration, or if a funding gap occurs over a weekend, agencies may not have enough time to complete a shutdown of affected projects and activities before funding resumes." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the Senate just recessed until after midnight. Booyahhayoob (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the reasons no longer have anything to do with DACA or immigration or anything related to the first one. This isn't a filibuster where the the first one was. If this shutdown is significant, it needs it's own article. --DHeyward (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DHeyward: This shutdown has everything to do with the last one. The agreement to finalize a immigration bill made this CR so short and now the government has shutdown. I don't really think this shutdown deserves another article because it was so short, however. If you look at the initial request, there is precedent for doing this with the shutdowns of 1995. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be part of the appropriations bill they passed. There is no agreement on immigration and immigration wasn't the reason for the lapse. It lapsed because a conservative deficit hawk slowed up voting. Slowing up the vote over deficit spending by one Republican Senator is in no way related to a filibuster by Democrats over DACA. --DHeyward (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The latest shutdown has ended quickly before screwing up too many people's lives; however it was still technically a shutdown and workers were sent home, so there have been multiple ones this year. In any case, the latest event can be more easily managed if it's kept in a general article about the other one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who was sent home? Whose lives were screwed up? The government actually has to shutdown so people show up to implement the shutdown. They don't just read the paper and stay home. They go in and implement the shutdown. That's what makes it wasteful. This one ended before the vast majority of worker's day started so they won't even implement their plan. It's being called a "lapse." It will be "lapsed" until Trump signs it but the time of signature doesn't impact the directive not to shutdown. --DHeyward (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article currently contains no information on the February shutdown. In its current state, it would be better to rename to United States federal government shutdown of January 2018 and allow space for United States federal government shutdown of February 2018 to be developed. --LukeSurl t c 12:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the government **did** shut down today. President did not tweet that he signed the legislation until after 9AM. Even if there turn out to be no furloughs, the article should include that. the Ten Year Test tells me that someone might be confused about whether the shutdown happened in February or January and the answer is BOTH. MPS (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given that a shutdown did occur today, though it lasted but a few hours. Javert2113 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a Government Shutdown lasting for over 5 hours is still enough to worth mentioning in the same article. Dangeredwolf (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or split - Support the move, or split part of the article to United States federal government shutdown of February 2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is called "shutdown" by most reliable sources, even if it was a short one and nobody got sent home. This morning news titles include reports of the end to the "shutdown". We can debate about what it should technically be called, but it is commonly known (WP:COMMONTERM) as a shutdown. Z22 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – There is existing precedent to do so. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the second one was short, there have been multiple. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all the supports, the entire lead would need rewriting as the core issues for each are very different. The only reason there was a February shutdown was because Paul Rand asked for recorded votes. There was no disagreement on content. It was like having a fire drill and the end of the school day and everyone left early. Also, nothing was shutdown as employees have to report to work in order to shutdown. These were very different events that don't relate to each other. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad Wikipedia isn't a wiki, because then we could tweak the lede to make note of issues that led to the second shutdown. Wait.... what-pedia?
Thanks for your novel and quixotic analysis comparing the shutdown to a firedrill though. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamacfarlane: You're a little bit late. The shutdown did happen a second time. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Requested move 9 February 2018: United States federal government shutdown of January 2018[edit]

The current article is about the shutdown that occurred in January 2018 as the result of a failed cloture vote and filibuster over the issue of DACA. The February funding lapse was only procedural and caused by requests from Rand Paul for recorded votes which by rule take a certain amount of time. Rand Paul opposed the bill due to concerns over the deficit. He did not have enough votes to stop cloture. These are vastly different procedures, practices and issues that do not lend themselves to the same article. The entire lead and premise would need to be rewritten if this article is generally about funding lapses or if this article is specifically about shutdowns related to policy disagreements. --DHeyward (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, although I'm not sure if the formatting of these discussions is correct, to have two competing move proposals going simultaneously. But, yes, this is the specific government shutdown that occurred in January of 2018. Now that there has also been a shutdown in February of 2018, "shutdown of 2018" is not a sufficiently specific title. We should not build up this article to also be the main article for the February shutdown, because the second shutdown was substantially different in both its cause and its effects. --DavidK93 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently there is no article United States federal government shutdown of February 2018; it's a redirect to the section of this article discussing the funding gap. We don't have any articles about funding gaps that did not lead to furloughs, and although there are reliable sources about this event, I'm a bit skeptical that an article of substantial length could be written about it. (What would the Effects section say? A sentence about Congressional members and staffers having to stay up really late for one night?) I welcome someone trying to write up that article and then we can decide where it goes, but the text as it currently exists isn't substantial enough for a split. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs)
  • Oppose WP:DESCRIPDIS- article, as written, discusses shutdowns in January and February with a United States federal government shutdown of February 2018 section that, as User:Antony-22 notes, wouldn't support a full article. A brief sentence summarizing the section can easily be added to the lede. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one article for both shutdowns. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

February Shutdown is incorrect[edit]

The information on the February shutdown is incorrect. It says "No Federal employees were affected because the shutdown occurred overnight..." give or take. It's inaccurate as the shutdown affected at minimum Federal Employees at the Internal Revenue Service from Ogden, Utah. This does not account for other Federal employees that work overnight or swing shifts in fulfillment of their duties. I tried to edit the article to say "FEW Federal employees were affected as the shutdown occurred overnight..." but I could not. Could this be updated by a moderator or whoever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.98.169.243 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a source for this? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely to be true (i.e. the article is likely incorrect). PredictIt contacted a whole bunch of agencies asking about furloughs and got back some rather mixed answers which suggest that there were furloughs, and in particular a large number of IRS employees, but (probably) not an appreciable share of all federal employees. But I' not sure they count as a reliable source. --NYKevin 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December shutdown[edit]

In case there is a shutdown this December that lasts more than a day, I suggest that this article be used as a summary-style overview of the three shutdowns, with full coverage of the January shutdown split into United States federal government shutdown of January 2018, and a new article being created at United States federal government shutdown of December 2018. The February funding gap is too short to justify its own article, so it can stay here unless it is significantly expanded. Thoughts? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was about to come here to say that. However, the new shutdown may very well run into 2019, which makes naming things a problem. We could call it United States federal government shutdowns of 2018 and 2019 but then what if there's another shutdown in December 2019? Which could itself stretch into 2020, and so on. Smartyllama (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues into 2019 or a future shutdown happens, we can deal with that then. No need to pull out the crystal ball. Anyway, the current reporting is that Congress has adjourned and definitely won't pass anything until Saturday afternoon [2], so it looks likely there will be some kind of funding gap. I'll start a section here, and if it starts getting long we can split out the two articles at that point. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting out makes a lot of sense; but no need to do so in the middle of a developing situation. Should the current shutdown run into 2019, I suggest the title United States federal government shutdown of 2018-2019. Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when this shutdown becomes longer than the January one, it would be a good time to split the article, though I wouldn't be opposed to splitting it earlier given that the Senate has adjourned until Thursday [3]. Honestly, I think the fact that it's at the very end of this longish article is discouraging people from improving it. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, having done the split, I'm actually not sure there's a need for an intermediate-level 2018 article. There's too many layers, and I think people are still landing on this article and having trouble finding the December one. [4] What do you think about "merging" this in abbreviated form back to Government shutdowns in the United States#2018? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 08:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a typo[edit]

I believe "A third shutdown began on December 22, 2018, ad is still ongoing." should read "A third shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and is still ongoing"

Smarminess[edit]

If we want so sacrosanctly to protect our precious texts against wanton, let alone vandalistic, editing, we should endeavor first to pose articlse worthy of pride of such volume and smugness.

This is not such an article.

One need not go very far to find the verbiage, "still ongoing." This is redundant. If something is ongoing, then it's still with us. It is as meaningless as it is ignorant to write "still ongoing." This is the sort of issue I expect to have to call to the attention of a fourth-grader, not that of a putatively esteemed Wikipedia contributor whose text is somehow regarded as too sublime to be editable by the general public. 2601:589:4B00:7AB:E5DC:E4E0:F112:B597 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little redundancy is not necessarily harmful. However, if you want to remove the word "still", be my guest. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the third shutdown continues into next year...[edit]

...are we going to rename this article to change 2018 to 2018–2019?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need admin attention for move[edit]

I'm reworking the split because nearly all of the edit history of this article is about the January shutdown. This article now contains just the January article and should be moved to United States federal government shutdown of January 2018, but I found this article is move-protected. Would be good to have a quick resolution by an admin to perform the move so people don't get confused about what is where. Thanks. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_2018_United_States_federal_government_shutdown&oldid=1207794837"