Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States

Section 3: List/Table of U.S. government funding gaps

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)

wanted: Update (April 2017 / Trump)

washingtonpost 1 April 2017

google hit list --Neun-x (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Funding gap != government shutdown

According to a few sources [1] [2], 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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The likelihood of another government shutdown

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) Evieliam

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)

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 [3]. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This article may be useful. LK (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Supposed shutdown under Carter

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)

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 [4] [5] [6] [7]. 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)

Overriding Presidential veto

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)

It's a two-thirds vote in each house, separately. Closeclouds (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

References

NPOV

"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)

Removed the NPOV tag as the section that contain it and a lot of other fluff was removed in this edit. [8] NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Confusion over number of shutdowns/funding gaps and terminology

Having been trying to find out how many government shutdowns have affected the US, I'm finding this article, combined with other sources, a bit confusing. This article says "there have been 22 gaps in budget funding, 10 of which led to federal employees being furloughed". Another user on the talk page suggests a shutdown is not the same as funding gap, and that without furlough, there is no actual government shutdown. The user does, however, acknowledge that definitions of "shutdown" differ. Having looked at other sources, it seems a wider definition of "shutdown" is normally used. See here and here (etc.) for claims that the current shutdown is the 21st. I can't work out how to reconcile this article with the other sources I linked to. If they are counting all funding gaps as shutdowns, why does this article list 22 gaps, while other sources say 21?

Unfortunately, having come to this article to try to understand the issue, I'm not in a position to improve the article myself. But I'd like to suggest some changes that hopefully someone with more expertise can make:

• A clear explanation of how terminology is being used on Wikipedia. If a shutdown is not the same as a funding gap and Wikipedia is aiming to be more precise than the majority of other sources people might read on the topic, the article ought to make clear how the two terms are being used.
• A clear labelling of each instance of a funding gap, both in this article and in the related List of United States federal funding gaps article, as to whether it is considered a government shutdown or merely a funding gap. The list article does specify whether or not government employees were furloughed, but does not make it clear whether this is the same as a shutdown.
• Some way of clarifying how the count of 22 funding gaps was arrived at when other sources seem to disagree on the count. If it helps, this external article, which lists all shutdowns (and also arrives at a count of 21) doesn't mention a shutdown in 1980. Confusingly, the Wikipedia article on the topic calls the 1980 shutdown the "first federal government shutdown in the United States".

194.82.210.247 (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources are very inconsistent about what they mean by the term "shutdown". On top of this is the fact that the plain-language definition of "shutdown" requires that something actually shuts down. If there is no disruption to government services, it shouldn't be described as a shutdown because nothing shut down. (For example, this Congressional Research Service report has a good explanation on p. 2, in the box "Are a Funding Gap and a Shutdown the Same Thing?") The fact that otherwise-reliable sources refer to them as shutdowns anyway raises issues in light of our policies on reliable sources.

The solution in these cases is to state what definition we're using, and prefer unambiguous terminology like "funding gap" and "shutdown with furloughs". The list of shutdowns in this article specifically states that only shutdowns that led to furloughs are listed there, while the list of funding gaps at its own article lists all 22 funding gaps (and has a column to show whether there were furloughs). And the February funding gap is described by language like "it was called a shutdown by the media even though there was no disruption to government services." Perhaps we can still do a better job at that.

The 1980 shutdown is an odd case. It obviously happened and is well-documented, but most recent lists seem to omit it. I'm not sure why; it might be because it was very limited in scope, affecting only the Federal Trade Commission. But it was still a partial government shutdown and it should still be counted here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit dispute regarding the inclusion of the February 9, 2018 funding gap

I made an edit to remove the February 2018 funding gap from the list, because by the article's own distinction:

This list includes only funding gaps that led to actual employee furloughs. Not all funding gaps have led to shutdowns, even after the Civiletti opinions of 1980 and 1981.

The edit was reverted by User:JRSpriggs (@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)

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)

Too much bias on this page

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)

@MontChevalier: Could you provide some specific instances, that we could address? Cstanford.math (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this article on opioids? https://www.briarwooddetox.com/blog/drug-trafficking-sources/ The page sites only two sources, and they're both biased. This one disagrees with those, and even calls them liars. And then cites his intel. But let me guess, "No conservatives allowed"? I can't wait to see what excuse you come up with to not use the source.

MontChevalier (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 12 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: Not moved. Consensus against moving this page to the proposed name. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Government shutdowns in the United States → Government shutdown – Classic WP:INUSA problem. Is there another topic called "government shutdown" that we have encyclopedic coverage of? It doesn't seem so. If shutdowns are unique to the American political system, which appears to be the case—the article mentions the occurrence is "nearly impossible in other forms of government"—the "in the United States" is unnecessarily wordy. If not, redirecting "government shutdown" here shows American WP:BIAS. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose typical Americentric view of the world.. Government shut down only ever refers to the USA.. What a load of... You are not the only sentient beings on this planet with government problems."' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.77.70.100 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  And redirecting X to "X in the United States" doesn't show bias?! --BDD (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. —  AjaxSmack  00:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even though there aren't articles about other government shutdowns on Wikipedia, the title is too generic and may mean a lot of things outside the United States. 50.75.164.86 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also the redirect should be deleted or made into a soft redirect as it shows bias as per nom and may be misleading. 50.75.164.86 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  What other topics could this refer to? The normal way, if we identify any, would be hatnotes and/or a disambiguation page. I can't really get behind the idea of a soft redirect, which will irritate readers without any real benefit. --BDD (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'm a little late but as described below there are very similar phenomenon in other countries, which may be described as "shutdowns" in certain circumstances. I could give you examples but I don't think it should be necessary. I agree soft redirects don't look the prettiest but the hard redirect now shows a very clear bias. 50.75.164.86 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment we have articles on United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, United States federal government shutdowns of 1995–1996 (Rs include Christmas shutdown) and United States federal government shutdown of 2013 (Rs include The Shutdown of 2013), among others. We already have R United States federal government shutdowns, so if we prefer a "precise" to a "concise" name then that should be it, per WP:CONSISTENCY. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• ? Calidum 03:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC):.

The current title is neither precise (federal govt) nor concise. We should at least choose one or the other. 89.147.70.233 (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also per WP:CONCISE. Calidum 03:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Government shutdowns are unique to the US as far as I can tell. See this WaPo article for more info Shushugah (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Eventhough Government Shutdown is quite unique to the US, there should be an indicator to prevent misunderstanding of the topic name. Irachatan (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose too generic. If it was renamed this would confuse people. Assuming this may affect other countries. 91.239.32.0 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unless there are other countries that have government shutdowns עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is entirely about the US federal government, which almost uniquely has this problem. Let's not dilute the article with {{Globalize}} followed by descriptions about how other countries don't have this (as failure to pass a budget leads to No Confidence and early elections). If someone wants to write an article with a world-wide perspective, they can write a separate article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  When those things happen, are they called "government shutdowns"? --BDD (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  If comparable events happen in other countries use different names other than "Government shutdowns", that's all the more reason why the article name should not be called "Government shutdowns." An article describing the event itself (excluding any particular country) would need a title that describes said event (e.g. "governmental budget failures" or whatever). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨

• Oppose In a parliamentary system, such an event is called a Loss of supply which causes the dissolution of the government. In presidential systems, it is called a Budget crisis and a government shutdown is still possible in any presidential system. However, if in fact government shutdowns as described in the article truly are an American-only phenomenon, that's a good reason to continue to include "United States" in the title; excluding it would necessitate explaining why "Government shutdowns" are actually only "United States government shutdowns" and why this does not occur elsewhere; to rename it to "Government shutdowns" with the rationale being that it's an American-only term without proceeding to explain it only applies to the government of the United States and why others do not use this term would be insufficient. The current title is perfectly fine. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨
• Oppose to renaming. Yes, this is a USA phenomenon. That must be clearly reflected in the title. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose to renaming. It is USA related -- naveenpf (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title requires the qualifier for consistency as per above comment on pages relating to this. Other similar discussions outline the need to associate the phenomenon with the US as the title should reflect what it is and where it happens. An attempt to {{Globalize}} will only confuse readers who may be looking for something similar that happens in other governments despite different naming conventions. Because there is ambiguity in the suggested title, WP:CONCISE and possibly WP:NATURALDIS needs to be used. The current name is fine. TragicVision1 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would be carrying some Americentrism. I agree with BrendonTheWizard. It happened to Australia in 1975 and it still can happen to any country, in theory. From my knowledge, in Brazil, while a shutdown from exactly same cause would not happen, some restrict shutdowns had occurred, as for an example "fiscal-shutdown" and a few public services in mid-2017 in a crisis due to lack of resources. Andretf (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is extremely helpful to have "United States" as the suffix. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose; there is nothing wrong with the current title, which clearly states what the article is about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do understand the nomination that such position is likely only possible in the US, but honestly this article's title is clearly more informative with the "in" suffix. --hydrox (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move to new name, and support to remove hard redirect from Government shutdown. It is clear that the phenomenon is most relevant to the United States, and that at present, no other Wikipedia article "Government shutdown in X" exists. However, there are countries in which government shutdowns are possible, and did occur in the past. While not common enough to have yet made it into Wikipedia (I am not saying those are not relevant!), removing the "in the United States" part will create possible ambiguity. For the same reason, the redirect should be turned into a soft one. Or, maybe, into a disambiguation page, if someone can create articles for the other cases of possible shutdowns (Australia and Brazil have been mentioned above). Renerpho (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Government shutdowns are not limited to the United States, but this is not an article on Government Shutdowns around the world - for instance, it does not include information on the Government Shutdown in Belgium. Yes, it can be noted that Government Shutdowns elsewhere are typically less dramatic, with various "tricks" being used to avoid issues that are not available in the United States, such as with Bismarck deciding to use the budget from previous years to get around an intransient parliament, but that does not mean they cannot be equated to this situation. 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. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:36, 21 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.

Need chart or table for quick and clear summary

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)

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)

Something like that but this is too simple and is put in order of years. It needs to allow users to change it in any order, for example, instead of in order of year, should let us put it in order of length of shutdown by number of days. I have found a better one, the one I would like to see showed far more than I hoped for, it is much more clearer, here is the link...

List_of_United_States_federal_funding_gaps

This table is much better, allows us to see which party the president is a member of, who was in control of Senate and who was in control of House, as well as allowing the option to see table in order of year or in order of length of days.

Rewrite of section for current shutdown

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)

This section has been systematically eviscerated of important content to whitewash the reality of what is transpiring. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@GUtt01: Kindly refrain from removing these perfectly legitimate edits and restore them:

On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction. Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.

soibangla (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

2018-2019 Shutdown: NPOV

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)

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)

 Done I've added these changes myself Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

These edits should be restored

On January 15, the White House Council of Economic Advisors doubled its estimate of how much the shutdown was impairing economic growth, suggesting that the damage could cause the economy to slip into a contraction.

was removed on the premise that it is speculative. This is incorrect. It may be true that the CEA estimate is speculative, but it is a fact that they doubled their estimate, which is what the edit states. It makes no assertion as to the validity of the CEA estimate.

Through January 17, 2019, multiple public polls found that most Americans opposed shutting down the government over the border wall and blamed Trump for the impasse.

was removed on the premise that this is a current event. There is a large amount of polling data on this matter, and such data is routinely provided in other articles, because despite this being a current event, the poll results are a matter of historical record that will never change. soibangla (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason for each one, and it is tied into the fact that the section they are associated to concern a current event - "This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this section may not reflect the most current information. Please feel free to improve this section or discuss changes on the talk page." As such the reason for each is simple:

• Unless the estimate includes a figure, it can't be included, and the text must be encyclopedic in nature - "As of 'date', the shutdown is estimated to be costing the United States 'estimated value, per Ref'."
• Polls can't be counted on, because these can change over time.

GUtt01 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unless the estimate includes a figure, it can't be included" — where is that in policy?

"Polls can't be counted on, because these can change over time" — in fact, these poll results are now cast in stone as history. Other future polls may show different results, and those can be provided later. Note that the edit begins with "Through January 17" soibangla (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Its very difficult to know yet what the economic impact if nay may be regards to the shutdown. While I am inclined to think they will have a negative impact, my opinion is not citable. There is also a big argument over who is at "fault" and reasonable people know that while Trump said he will take the blame, others say that both sides are acting like babies.--MONGO (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The estimate of economic impact is from CEA based on economic analysis, it not a matter of public opinion. As the edit says, multiple polls show most people blame Trump.soibangla (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

MONGO states a clear fact on both areas - we have no idea on the clear economic impact the shutdown is having, so stating that they double their estimate on this does not work if we don't have any figures to gauge the reliability of this information, regardless of notability in it; we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel about who is responsible for prolonging the shutdown, because we need to denote neutrality with the information we add in.GUtt01 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

One does not need to cite figures to correctly reflect reporting from a reliable source that CEA has doubled their estimate. Moveover, it is worthy of inclusion because it is the president's internal top economists who are saying this, not outsiders who others might voice skepticism over. "we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel" — then what would you propose is a better alternative? As the edit says, "multiple public polls found that most Americans..." Would you feel differently if the polls were consistently in Trump's favor? soibangla (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel about who is responsible for prolonging the shutdown, because we need to denote neutrality with the information we add in.

I genuinely can't see the logic here. Opinion polls are reliable for gauging public opinion, and indeed there aren't much other ways of doing that - how does accurately reporting what the polls state violate WP:NPOV in any way? There is no requirement to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First you said "we can't just count on opinion polls to denote how Americans truly feel," now you say "Opinion polls are reliable for gauging public opinion, and indeed there aren't much other ways of doing that." What? soibangla (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The two comments were by different editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If we want to discuss opinion polls on shutdowns, maybe it can be done on the main articles about them? None of the sections covering other shutdowns include information on opinion polls; we should consider these to be brief details, like a Lead of an article. GUtt01 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The only real problem with including that here, or in the main article, is that as the event is a current one, such polls can change over time. GUtt01 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I repeat: these polls results are cast in stone, future results may change. Feel free to make updates if that happens. soibangla (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

THEY ARE NOT CAST IN STONE!! This is a current event, and the views of people can change! GUtt01 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

These poll results are cast in stone. Future results may change. Feel free to make updates if that happens. soibangla (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I ask you: "Unless the estimate includes a figure, it can't be included" — where is that in policy? soibangla (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, these edits should be restored. This is no different from providing results of polling on any other pages. This is an important information for anyone who is going read this page any time soon. All pages on recent events have some amount of "recentism", and this is normal. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Both sentences have far too much "relative" phrasing; twice as much economic damage is far less useful than saying what the new estimate is. The Through January 17, 2019 construction is awkward, and there's a major difference between "most" meaning 55% and 75% and 95%. This information certainly should be on United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 now (and a full poll summary table might be needed there); however it may be too awkward to phrase it to include here at this time. We certainly won't need a day-by-day summary claiming that each day, someone new estimated the impact would have been larger; a final summary of the impact will be enough here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Economic impact quantified: "they think it will subtract now 0.1 ppts from GDP every week...and that's up from the previous estimate of 0.1 ppts every two weeks." soibangla (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirect from "Government Shutdown"

Quote from the archived requested move discussion by @NoCOBOL: "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)

• I'll remove the hard-redirect when I have an article to put there; I'll leave the discussion of whether it is better suited as a soft redirect in the meantime to others. I'm not sure how detailed the article will be; outside of Belgium, I'm struggling to find government shutdowns in other countries described as government shutdowns or similar, and so I might have to leave those out lest I be conducting WP:OR - but, at least it will be a start, and be a decent compromise on what to do with the page at Government shutdowns. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Government shutdowns in Europe

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)

Scrap the "Cost to Government" Column. You're getting it all wrong.

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)

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)

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)

Bias and ridiculous poll

One poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC inquiring on public opinion towards the end of the shutdown found that over half the 788 polled Americans held Trump and congressional Republicans accountable for the deadlock, rather than the Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer.[113]

Why is this in there? A poll of only 788 people in a nation of over 300 million people done by a newspaper that hates Trump is not really relevant here. Why 788? Did they keep polling until they got the percentage they were looking for then stop? You could find a poll from a different newspaper that gives the opposite results. Dream Focus 13:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The details would be in the methodology in how the sample size was determined. Wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Gallup poll. The issue is the way it's worded in the article: the number of participants should have more classification (where was in polled?), the date(s) of the poll, and the margin of error. A sample size can represent a population if the methods behind it minimize any unintentional/intentional bias. – The Grid (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I decided to look at the poll - didn't realize there's a direct link to how the poll was conducted here (actually really amazed about this).

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 8-11, 2019 among a random national sample of 788 adults with 58 percent reached on cell phones and 42 percent on landlines. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of 4.5 percentage points, including design effects due to weighting. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Glen Mills, Pa. ... A dual frame landline and cellular phone telephone sample was generated by Marketing Systems Group (MSG) using Random Digit Dialing procedures. Interviewers called landlines cellular phone numbers, first requesting to speak with the youngest adult male or female at home. The final sample included 329 interviews completed on landlines and 459 interviews completed via cellular phones, including 284 interviews with adults in cell phone-only households.

They even used the same initial questions they used during the shutdown in 95 and 96. The poll does not seem bias by the analysis and methodology shown. The number of people surveyed isn't of importance but at the same time the way the poll was conducted is verifiable. Any thoughts? – The Grid (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You could call up the same number of people in different areas and get totally different results. They can look at the voting records of each area and make it bias to the results they want. There is no reason to mention it. Dream Focus 18:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point about the random sample and that it's an outside agency performing the randomized phone numbers. Yes, the poll is pointless here. However, based on statistical methods it's a valid sample size with the methods performed. This kind of material is basic statistics regardless of the name attached to the report. – The Grid (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

All polls like this done for anything at all by anyone at all are pointless and stupid and should not be used in any articles at all. Dream Focus 20:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree to disagree but I would agree they are pointless for anything political. – The Grid (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Individual polls are essentially primary sources; we should strive to cite sources that put multiple polls in context, or at least we should try to cite multiple polls on the same subject rather than presenting just one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

If conducted correctly, a poll may give a good estimate of what the public thinks. However, what the public thinks is not a good indication of what is reality.

Also, the wording of the question, who is "held ... accountable for the deadlock", implies that the shutdown is bad — a fact not in evidence. Thus the question is biased against the shutdown.

There may be both good reasons and bad reasons to oppose the appropriations. We have not disentangled which is which. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The effects section needs a big expansion

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)

Comparison to Europe contains an incorrect statement?

“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)