Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Archive 1

Open RfCs and surveys

 * 

Nicknames in the lede
I feel there's no consensus to have these in the lead. Just because the partisan press is trying to blame it on someone doesn't make these nicknames (Trump Shutdown, Schumer Shutdown, Shithole Shutdown) encyclopedic in nature. Without a consensus, let's get them out of the lede and keep them out. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. El_C 04:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Trump administration is referring to it as the Schumer Shutdown and the Democrats are calling it the Trump Shutdown. I think we can loose Shithole Shutdown though, it seems to be a term only showing up on liberal blogs.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't need to include every ridiculous nickname for the event. Master of Time   ( talk ) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At a minimum having only Schumer's nickname for this event in the lead is a NPOV issue, and it would be too unwieldy to also have the one the White House is using("Schumer Shutdown") so neither should be there. If independent sources give this a nickname of some kind, maybe that could be used, but not ones applied by each side in the dispute. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Both nicknames are valid and defensible (TrumpShutdown, SchumerShutdown), what needs to be removed is the partisan subversive language associated with them, for instance the unsubstantiated statement that the latter is in place only via russian bots. Title should be as is, these two should be under social media. Regardless of ones politics or whether a consensus of blame can be reached, Wikipedia is a fair and unbiased source, and we should maintain neutral nomenclature in regards to this event. Titles of the shutdown should reflect previous naming patterns (ie United States Federal Government Shutdown of 2013). Nicknames can be reported secondarily, perhaps, if only to demonstrate sentiments of contemporary critics from both sides. Dorkmax (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Prior Trump statements and tweets
 Sounder Bruce  05:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Time has a list of relevant tweets going back to May. It may be worth including some of these (from secondary sources) in the Background section.
 * Some more background events from Pod Save America, again worth including secondary sources that tie this into the shutdown.


 * Fair point. Dschslava   Δx parlez moi 16:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Rename to Trump shutdown
This indigestible mouthful is impeding page views and causing eyesores everywhere. Per common name, we should rename this article “the Trump shutdown” as it is popularly known, after its originator, and add to the list of disgraceful things named after Donald Trump.
 * ‘’’Enthusiastic Support’’’:per WP: Commonname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.205.27 (talk) — 63.143.205.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose and suggest a speedy closure due to the RfC being malformed and proposed by an IP editor. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this loaded POV term. If there is a name that independent reliable sources come up with on their own that is being used, then maybe, but not this. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

First single party shutdown
Yesterday, I made this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018&diff=821416897&oldid=821413680

Which was helpfully amended by Zowayix001: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018&diff=821444683&oldid=821443534

The information (which is relevant in my opinion, because it's historical) lived there for 22 hours, until removed by this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018&diff=next&oldid=821568127

I think in its final form (after many others amending and improving it, the text was of good quality, and well sourced:

This is the first shutdown in United States history to occur while both chambers of Congress as well as the White House are controlled by the same party (in this case the Republicans). One-party funding lapses have occurred previously, but did not result in the federal government's functions shutting down. The shutdown began on the first anniversary of Donald Trump taking office.

I think unprecedented turns in government actions are worth mentioning?

--Solarius (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is worth mentioning. I will re-add the text. Letupwasp (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is good content.- MrX 🖋 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not in the lead in partisan language, Democratic talking point fashion. There's no information that this factoid is a summation of a significant factor of the topic.  Further it's POV.  It could just as well be written as the "first time a minority party not elected to control either the house, senate or presidency filibustered a resolution to fund the government." Please remove the challenged material per page restrictions.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This "factoid" is covered my pretty much every serious source which discusses the shutdown. And it's encyclopedic information. Why would you NOT want to include it? I mean, except POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it was in Vox. CNN lists 18 shutdowns with 5 of those occuring under single party control.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is your own personal interpretation of a source - original research. There's a reason why the source does not refer to most of these as "shutdowns" but rather calls them "funding gaps". They're not comparable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Chart title "Federal government shutdowns since 1976" and WTF do you think a gap in funding is? Your comments regarding filibuster, the obvious lack of knowledge that government workers like TSA still go to work even though there will be a gap between paychecks raises serious wp:competence concerns.  The Continuing Resolution to fund the government through a gap in time failed a cloture vote to end debate.  The nature of shutdowns varies greatly but they are all "funding gaps."  Sheesh. --DHeyward (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lay off the personal attacks. And what in the hey are you talking about? What "comments regarding filibuster"? Your comment doesn't even make sense. Anyway, see below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See List of United States federal funding gaps. There were at least five funding gaps during the Carter administration when the House, Senate, and Presidency were all controlled by Democrats. Six, if you believe what Antony–22 says below in Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2018.
 * In any case, it is erroneous to imply that the Republican party has full control of the Senate, since the rules allow Democrats to filibuster (and thus obstruct) bills which have less than 60 Senators supporting them. This is what is happening in this case. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please present secondary sources which state this. We go by sources, not by personal opinions of Wikipedians.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We can't read sources and form our own conclusions. We can't create material that we think should be in a source. If there was a precious shutdown under one party control, it should be easy enough to find a source that actually says that.- MrX 🖋 11:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finding a source was easy. Finding nine sources was not, but here you go:
















 * "The last time one party held all the offices, the president and the House and the Senate, and a shutdown occurred was in the '70s, with Jimmy Carter." – ABC News


 * Then we have these (emphasis added):






 * The Guardian and USA Today implicitly say that "first ever" is a Democrat talking point, Politico reported that this is literally a DNC talking point.


 * I don't think including only the majority viewpoint would be adhering to NPOV. Politrukki (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, then we can say that it's the first shutdown with one party in control of everything since Jimmy Carter. And explain, per Wnt below, that that shutdown lasted only a few hours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you people actually have this article locked up (dare I say shut down?) over this debate. The Carter shutdown was "for a few hours" and didn't involve any employees being sent home because before that genius Civletti the mere fact of a missed deadline didn't mean people went home and besides it was for a few hours.  So it was a shutdown that's not a shutdown.  So we should not say this is the "second" shutdown in defiance of all the sources we can cite, but we should most assuredly mention this event as a predecessor and forerunner in some other way. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion over the terminology here. This Congressional Research Service report has a good explanation on p. 2, which I'm going to quote below. "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."

Furthermore, the relationship between the two has changed over time. In the 1970s, funding gaps never led to shutdowns. In 1980, there was an opinion by Carter's attorney general that mandated shutdowns, which was first enforced during the 1980 shutdown. The Reagan administration enforced this inconsistently, with some funding gaps leading to shutdowns but not others. Since 1990, funding gaps have always led to shutdowns. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that settles the question (I mean, it was really settled before, but...) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2018
The article says repeatedly that the government shut down on Midnight of Saturday, January 19, 2018. It shut down on midnight of Saturday, January 20, 2018. 2600:1700:28D0:5E30:F4ED:982:725F:9 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears there was only one instance of this error, and that was in the lead of the article. I have this issue; we thank you for notifying us of this mistake. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Guess what
The reporting that this is the first government shutdown under unified party control is incorrect. There was a one-day shutdown in 1980 that only affected the FTC, that happened during the 96th United States Congress when Carter was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Some sources neglect to mention it because it was so small, but see. I'm going to update the article with this information. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this is original research. Secondary sources say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * False. Only a poor piece by Vox claims it.  Here's CNN.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Please show me where in the CNN source it says this was "second shutdown". The source actually says "A shutdown later this month would mark the first time since these attorney general opinions that the government has shut down under a single-party White House and Congress".
 * Basically, calling the only-FTC-spending-gap a "shutdown", comparable to this one, is pure original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * .Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Volunteer Marek. The material is original research and synthesis. Let's use current sources and not our own conclusions that this is the second shutdown unified party shutdown..- MrX 🖋 11:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "shutdown", but the source should be cited and the event briefly mentioned to provide historical context. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not original research, since it's backed up by multiple contemporaneous and recent sources. The problem is that sources that we would otherwise consider reliable disagree with each other.  In this case, there are contemporaneous sources that describe it as a "shutdown", including multiple Washington Post articles and a GAO report, and a recent article by Business Insider.  The other sources which state this is the first unified-party shutdown omit any mention of the 1980 shutdown at all.  It is likely that the writers of these sources were simply unaware of the 1980 shutdown, given its age and limited nature.  This supports considering the sources referring to the 1980 shutdown as more reliable.
 * That being said, it would be correct to say that this is the first widespread government shutdown over single-party rule, and/or to give the context that the 1980 shutdown only affected one agency. I'd also support a construction like "Many sources claim this is the first unified-party shutdown, but a brief, limited shutdown in 1980 also occurred under unified-party rule."  I'm happy for those changes to be made, though the text is protected now.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Three of the articles listed at the beginning talk about the shutdown of an agency, not the government; the fourth talks about a government shutdown, then says "it almost happened" in 1980, but "nobody was sent home". So I think we can go verbatim with most sources and say the first shutdown of this type, not the first widespread shutdown.  Then we can qualify that right after the AG declared the policy, a single-party shutdown "almost happened" with nominal lack of funds for a few hours, and did happen for the FTC, in some other sentence.  I should note though that if we want to push the limits on OR by saying a single-party shutdown almost happened, we might want to put it more in context since Carter had opponents in his own party.  A single-party shutdown of that type could not be resolved by a "nuclear option" abolishing the filibuster. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "nobody was sent home" quote refers to an October 1980 deadline, not to the May 1980 shutdown, where people were sent home. I think the problem is as follows:
 * There is no question that the May 1980 shutdown occurred and that employees were furloughed. There is no question that both contemporaneous and recent reliable sources that mention it refer to it as a "shutdown", although they may not use the term "government shutdown".
 * Sources stating that is the first unified-party shutdown omit any mention of the 1980 shutdown at all, implying either that the authors were not aware of it and thus the article is unreliable, or that they were aware of it and chose not to mention the nuance.
 * I think the solution is to say this is the first widespread government shutdown under unified-party rule. Using "widespread" is unambiguous, while omitting it is not.  The 1980 shutdown doesn't have to be mentioned in the lead, but should be briefly mentioned in the body. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The May 1980 shutdown as a shutdown of the FTC, an agency but not the government. They had to stop running those machines they built to trick smokers into thinking they were not going to catch lung cancer from "low-tar" cigarettes.  It was not really anything much, though government employees, speaking in the days when America was America, actually dared to say it was "idiotic".  So no, I see no government shutdowns here. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was agreeing that a shutdown of a single agency is different in scale than a more widespread shutdown. It's still a shutdown, even if sources don't use the construction "government shutdown".  But it's pushing the plain meaning of the words to say that the shutdown of a government agency is not a government shutdown without qualification.  I'm saying that this nuance should be reflected in the article.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Immigration reform
Very important part of this situation is Immigration reform ( 1) DACA, 2) DV Lottery abolition, 3) Chain immigration abolition, 4) Merit system Immigration implementation, etc.). But we dont have any article about those big reform proposals. Why ? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement between text and table
I cannot edit the page but there is a disagreement in the number of Republicans who voted against the bill. The table says 5 Republicans voted against the bill and lists their names, the text says only 4 did. 198.160.103.149 (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is some weird point of procedure where McConnell had to change his vote to "oppose" at the last minute in order to be allowed under rules of procedure to bring it to a vote again later. Definitely deserves a long explanation here because not one American in 10,000 understands it. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, McConnell (the Republican leader of the Senate) clearly favored invoking cloture and passing the continuing resolution. But when it was clear that it would fail, he voted against it so that he could ask for reconsideration later if the opportunity arose. See Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XIII. An ordinary senator who changed his/her mind might be embarrassed to admit that and ask for reconsideration, so traditionally it is the leader who makes the request. This is perhaps one of many reasons that the leader is paid more than ordinary senators. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: deal reached
Add to lead: "As of the afternoon of January 22, a deal had been announced to reopen the government the following day.  The Senate voted 81–18 to end debate and proceed to approving new temporary funding.  The House approved it and the President signed the temporary funding bill that evening.   " Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Add that it was an extension not a final deal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The text seems right as written. There should be a lot more sentences about the extension, McConnell's promise (with quote), the CHIP six-year authorization and so on, but those are for future edit requests ... or, hopefully, Wikipedia's shutdown here will also end. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What we really need is to edit this collaboratively, but full protection is making that difficult. Feel free to edit/expand the above.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that vote was on the cloture motion to end the filibuster. I expect the CR will be near unanimous as there was no opposition to what was in it.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I've updated the requested text above.  Really, significant parts of the article need to be rewritten now that the shutdown is overt.  The full protection should be removed so that this work can continue unimpeded.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian bots
Isn't claiming that the hashtag #SchumerShutdown was promoted by Russian bots very biased? Why not at least add "allegedly" before it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.86.179 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think so.. The source wrote: "#SchumerShutdown became the top trending topic promoted by Russian bots on social media on Sunday night, a national security group found."- MrX 🖋 19:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because some organization said so, doesn't make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.86.179 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source reports then we can include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems undue over all, just leave it out. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree it does appear to be undue as one group Alliance for Securing Democracy has claimed it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would it be undue? Isn't it relevant to the topic? And it's like three words. Pretty much can't get less undue than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there is no proof of this, so it basically sounds nothing more than an attempt to discredit Trump supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.86.179 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually bother reading the provided source? Anyway, it's from a reliable source. And the question was about UNDUE not whether there was any "proof" (sic). People always yell "no proof" when they JUSTDONTLIKE something (even, and maybe especially, when the proof is right there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it, and all I saw was some organization claiming that it was promoted by Russian bots, this isn't proof of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.86.179 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hill is a reliable source, and the Alliance for Securing Democracy appears to be a legitimate bipartisan organization. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is only a claim made by Alliance for Securing Democracy as per Huff Post ,Fox News and Newsweek at least needs to be attributed to them .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The source seems convinced this organization of "national security officials from both political parties" is legit. True, spies by their nature are not what I would call trustworthy.  But we should just play the ball as it lies and say that this organization reported that this tag was promoted by the 600 Russian twitter bots they monitor with their app.  Note this does NOT mean that is the source of its popularity.  Russian trolls can, obviously, choose to promote an already-rising tag just to make themselves look powerful or to mess with our heads.  So we should just say who said and precisely what they said and don't add anything and don't leave anything out. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Lack of balance in the description of the cause of the shutdown
The current version points to the refusal of sufficient Senate Democrats to vote for cloture as the proximate cause of the shutdown. While this is literally accurate, it doesn't tell the whole story and unduly tips the responsibility for the shutdown in one direction. For the sake of accuracy, I think the article also needs to mention the Jan 11 meeting at the White House, in which the President rejected the bipartisan Senate proposal that would have obviated the need for a cloture vote. (I would add this info myself, but the page is currently locked.) -- Hux (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2018
Replace by Russian bots with mostly by conservatives Zektro69 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Need sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The proposed edit would require one or more sources for verification and would probably also require consensus if sources report conflicting facts..- MrX 🖋 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fillbuster ended
So, according to the Washington Post, Senate Democrats finally allowed the funding to go through. I'm gathering more sources.Kirbanzo -- (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CNN also reported this. -- Kirbanzo (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: New source from CBS, and officially turning this into an edit request.

Example paragraph:

On January 22, Senate Democrats allowed the filibuster that caused the shutdown to end, allowing Congress to pass legislation that would allow the government to reopen. The bill was later confirmed by the House of Representatives. A signature of President Trump is all that's required to open the government on January 23 or later.

This is just a rough draft, not actually what would go in (especially the last paragraph - that will probably change soon to be that Trump signed the reopening bill)

Kirbanzo (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Found out someone already suggested the same thing - I'll let the admin choose which to use. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
I request a change in the Social media section:

The hashtag #TrumpShutdown became the top trending hashtag worldwide on January 20, 2018. By the afternoon of January 20, #TrumpShutdown had been used some 2.6 million times on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram; while the hashtag #SchumerShutdown was mentioned 1.3 million times during the same period. Other existing hashtags, such as #GOPShutdown and #DemShutdown, were mentioned 236,000 and 107,000 times respectively. The Alliance for Securing Democracy, a project led by former top national security officials from both the Democratic and Republican Parties, said the hashtag #SchumerShutdown was the top trending hashtag being promoted by Russian bots and trolls on Twitter on the night of January 21.

Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I got no problem with that phrasing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be consensus for this; I overlooked this when posting my version, which is similar. Does the source specify "trolls"? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Strange redirects
When searching for this article using 2018 Government Shutdown, the search bar instead recommends 2018 government shitdown, which redirects to this page. This also applies to Government shutdowns in the United States with Government shitdown and United States federal government shutdown of 2013 with 2013 government shitdown. My editing skills are nonexistent, so I don't know whether and how to change this. Der Trutinator (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirects were created by about two days ago. They have now been nominated for speedy deletion as an implausible typo or misnomer. If the speedy deletions are contested, then the only thing you can do, if you really want the redirects gone, is to nominated them for deletion at RfD.  Sky  Warrior  22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to social media section
In spirit of neutrality, because anyone who thinks that only one hashtag was promoted by bots is thinking wishfully. Furthermore, this points to the real notability of the bots' use of #SchumerShutdown, highlighting that it was the top hashtag promoted by Russian-based bots:

The hashtag #TrumpShutdown became the top trending hashtag worldwide on January 20, 2018. By the afternoon of January 20, #TrumpShutdown had been used some 2.6 million times on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram; while the hashtag #SchumerShutdown was mentioned 1.3 million times during the same period. Other existing hashtags, such as #GOPShutdown and #DemShutdown, were mentioned 236,000 and 107,000 times respectively. Bots were used to promote some of the hashtags, with #SchumerShutdown becoming the top hashtag used by known Russian bots. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree because articles from The Hill and HuffPost, the former of which is influenced by an article from the latter, indicate that the hashtag #SchumerShutdown was the only shutdown-affiliated hashtag being promoted by Russian bots and trolls. In ascending order, the other hashtags were: #ReleaseTheMemo, #Syria, #Afrin, #MAGA, #Ukraine, #Turkey, #Obamagate, #WomensMarch2018, and #Russia. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove ice hockey mention
Remove "The Army Black Knights men's ice hockey team was reportedly forced to cancel its yearly hockey rivalry game against the Royal Military College of Canada Paladins, but the game was later announced to happen as scheduled." There is no need to report an effect that didn't happen. --LukeSurlt c 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the ice hockey mention fails WP:GNG due to the fact it never happened. --Kirbanzo (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 January 2018
It should be stated at the end of the paragraph on social media that Trump countered #TrumpShutdown but touting his own hashtag, #DemocratShutdown. Here's the ref: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369895-trump-counters-trumpshutdown-trend-with-democratshutdown trainsandtech (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This should be in the section that covers Donald Trump's reaction, not the social media section. --Kirbanzo (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Tweets and sources
I see that there are sentences whose source is a tweet. Considering that on this topic there were thousands of media articles and millions of social media updates, and that for every furloughed federal employee there's at least one more story to tell, I think it's better to focus on the stories which have been covered by most/best sources. Nemo 07:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 January 2018
The Government shutdown has ended recently. Please note this 99.66.147.40 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remove full protection
Now that the shutdown is over, significant parts of this article will need to be rewritten. With edit requests building up, this cannot be done efficiently or in a timely manner while the full protection is in effect. Will an administrator please lower this back to semi-protection? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Schumer Shutdown and Trump Shutdown nicknames
I don't know if either is notable enough to put in the lede, but I think both of these received enough mainstream coverage to warrant mentioning SOMEWHERE here. Weren't dozens of republican senators pushing SSD and dozens of democrat senators pushing TSD? What would be an appropriate place?

Edit: just noticed mentions under hashtags for social media, could not find due to lack of space in between, will see if other sources use space. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Article now says, "The 2018 shutdown began when the Senate failed to overcome a Democratic[dubious – discuss] filibuster"

Why the "dubious" tag on what is obvious fact? Democrat filibuster is fact.
Article now says: "The 2018 shutdown began when the Senate failed to overcome a Democratic[dubious – discuss] filibuster". The Democrats ran a filibuster vs a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. How is this dubious? The Democrat filibuster could not be stifled under current Senate rules for lack of 60 votes. Thus the government shut down. There is certainly nothing dubious about it being a Democrat filibuster, except one deems the term "Democratic" (instead of "Democrat") misleading. I recommend that the tag be removed. (PeacePeace (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Agree removed it and added have added a reference from ABC News and further cannot see a OR or even Neutrality here all comments appear to be sourced with WP:RS .The President comment needs to there and is in contest as all as RS sources including Time which states Democrats lost there spine and CNN states they lost the shutdown in this contest Trump's comment in BBC is not undue.Hence removing tag.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't just a filibuster. The Republicans didn't even have 50 votes - 5 of them voted with the Democrats. So yes, it's dubious to call it a a "Democratic filibuster". I'm open to getting the wording right but sprinkling "Democratic filibuster" throughout the article is obviously POV.
 * The President's opinion is undue for two reasons. First, per policy, the lede summarizes the article. This isn't summarizing anything. Second, you can't have that in there without presenting the opposite view - why there was an agreement to fund the government until Feb 8th. I'm sure Schumer also thought this was a "win" (obviously since otherwise he would not have agreed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like it noted that both of these controversial sentences were added and then re-added in violation of the "consensus required" discretionary sanction which is in effect on this article. Per policy, they need to be removed and then we can discuss what and how to add anything back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

lede summarizes the article
Right now we have the sentence "Some liberals have criticized the Democrats decision to withdraw the shutdown without a firm assurance and no guarantee on DACA" in the lede. There are several problems with it.

1) The text was restored by User:JRSpriggs, after being challanged, in violation of the Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. provision. 2) Who are these "liberals"? At best this is ambiguous. Why not just say "some Democrats"? 3) This is sourced to opinion pieces, which in this context makes them primary sources. It's WP:SYNTH. What you need here is a secondary source which is not an opinion piece which says what the text claims. 4) Finally, the lede is suppose to summarize the article. There's nothing in the article about the reaction to the compromise reached. So this shouldn't be in the lede unless there's actually text in the main body talking about it. Same thing applies to Trump's comments on the compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we have a section on whether government funding was taken hostage?
In this shutdown as in many previous shutdowns, there have been accusations by some people that one side or the other was taking government hostage. Ideally, I would hope to provide some criterion for determining whether hostage taking had occurred and, if so, who was at fault. Mere opposition (voting against or filibustering) to the continuing resolution cannot be considered hostage taking because there may be legitimate reasons for opposing an appropriations bill, and even if the bill fails to include funding for some necessary project, such funding could still be provided by a later appropriation.

For example, voting against the bill because one believes that CHIP is not a constitutionally authorized expenditure and wastes resources which are needed for other activities would be a legitimate reason to oppose the bill. Another such reason would be if one believes that funding ICE would violate the rights of the dreamers by causing them to be forcibly deported.

On the other hand, vetoing the bill because it failed to include enough money for building the wall along the Mexican border would be an illegitimate reason and so would constitute hostage taking. Voting against the bill because it fails to provide a path to citizenship for dreamers would also be hostage taking. Voting against it because it fails to provide enough funding for dealing with the opioid addiction crisis would also be hostage taking. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not for Wikipedia to assign blame or decide who was "taking hostages". Our goal is to present all viewpoints contained in reliable sources.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there some way we can get this cartoon into the article?
Please see this cartoon. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, because it is copyrighted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)