Jump to content

Talk:2013 United States federal government shutdown/Archive 4

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

Liberal bias (or lack thereof)

There's been mention of "liberal bias" in the comments on the edit page to the main article, which has seemed reasonable non-partisan to me in its tone. Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

An instance of bias in the current version is the sentence characterizing the shutdown as "GOP led". (I'll edit it out momentarily. It also has an improperly formed citation.) The GOP-controlled House sent a number of bills to the Senate, which could have approved them and sent them to the president, who could have signed them. The GOP is holding strong to a position (or positions), but the Senate is holding equally to its positions. This makes it inaccurate to characterize the shutdown as being instigated by either party. Earlier, I added a link to the general government shutdowns article, which discusses all 18 shutdowns since 1976. People can draw their conclusions from reviewing that history.
Oops. Duh. I neglected to sign the above. JimHarperDC (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

-The Senate's position can hardly be considered equal when the Republican House are the ones who want to break from the status quo and demand the repeal of a passed law in exchange for the passing of a Continuing Resolution, while the Senate simply wants to pass a clean Continuing Resolution 142.161.97.237 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the House sought a law change, but this doesn't justify the characterization of the shutdown as being "GOP led." House Republicans and their supporters probably believe they are doing the right thing in pursuing their aims, and there is scant evidence (though plenty of opinion, of course!) that they were seeking a shutdown. By all means, detail the debate in a neutral way and let readers render their own judgments about whether the House acted in good faith or sought to lead a shutdown. JimHarperDC (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No appropriations were made in the Affordable Care Act so it's up to each congress to decide on the level of funding. And as the constitution gives the house the privilege of creating spending bills, it's their right to refuse to fund it. And as to breaking with the status quo, the Democrats did that with the ACA itself! That didn't stop them, though. Mc6809e (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. The ACA is funded by mandatory continuing appropriations - which is why it is continuing to operate during the shutdown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Jim Harper, when you said this:
It's true that the House sought a law change, but this doesn't justify the characterization of the shutdown as being "GOP led." House Republicans and their supporters probably believe they are doing the right thing in pursuing their aims, and there is scant evidence (though plenty of opinion, of course!) that they were seeking a shutdown.
you nailed it well. This is truly an emotionally charged topic, but I believe you've sliced through much of it perfectly.Tgm1024 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I realize it's not October anymore, but as the article currently stands now, there's actually extensive documented evidence of the plans for and anticipation of a shutdown if demands to repeal or defund the ACA law were not met. Just noting that. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Reactions section , Preceding Events section and strong American-Left slant

Could any users who disagree please bring up sections of the text that they find objectionable and we'll discuss them here? Dan Wang (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I add {{Systemic bias}} to Reactions section , I'll discuss here.
1. The Reactions section gives great wieght to opinions expressed by Democrats.
a. There are long quotes from a few popular Democrat politicians. Meanwhile, Republican politicians are not given any such opinion quotes. In fact, there are no long explanatory quotes given to Republicans in the entire article! The article is entirely a fact-based review of most Republican actions... until the Reactions section which feels like cherry-picked editorializing.
b. The section explains, in great detail, the plight of those negatively affected by The Shutdown. What about the plight of those that see themselves as negatively affected by Obamacare? Where are the opinion pieces from the POV that see Obamacare as Left-Wing Authoritarianism (the central contention of The Shutdown)?
Because for all the political theatre, the shutdown did not actually do anything to stop Obamacare, and therefore could not possibly have positively affected anyone who claims to be negatively-affected by Obamacare. Opinions about the impact of Obamacare belong in the article about the Affordable Care Act, not this article.
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Criticisms of Obamacare should be kept in the Affordable Care Act article.
JamesThomasMoon1979 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
c. The right-leaning opinion articles that criticized the President for his choices of departments to shutdown, those are way down the line within the Reactions section. These counter-criticisms should be mentioned nearer the beginning of the Reactions section.
2. The Preceding events makes a big point to highlight the Koch Brothers.
Why always mention Koch Brothers , their connections and their wealth (e.g. "supported by funds from the billionaire Koch brothers")? These details are presented in a manner that is intended to highlight suspicion and mistrust.
a. Koch Brothers help fund some of the groups involved. Yet there are no such connections explained in detail for groups that refused to accept the House-presented spending appropriations bill.
b. Why not describe the Tea Party as the "blue-collar funded, grass-roots organized Tea Party" ? These are generally considered positive terms but there are no such adjectives preceding the mention of that group.
c. Why not desribe Senate Democrats or the Democrat President that refused to sign the bill as billionaire funded?
d. The Notes sections explains the Koch Brothers connection to Citizens United and tax-exempt status. How is such a long expository Note relevent? Not coincidentally, this is a major talking point of the American Left.
3. The Preceding events weaves together a narrative that the Republicans threatened and intended to shutdown the Federal Government. Also, the entire narrative is focused on Republicans but makes no mention of Senate Democrats. Both Houses and both major parties were necessary for the shutdown to occur.
This is because a wide variety of reliable sources describe, accurately, the fact that various factions within the Republican Party planned and intended on forcing the government shutdown. Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia weighs opposing claims in proportion to the weight given by reliable sources, and gives prominence to those which are given most credence by reliable sources. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the Republicans as primarily responsible for the shutdown. Ergo, it is not only not a violation of NPOV to describe the Republican Party as intending to shut down the government, NPOV requires us to give that description prominence.
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's better to explain the priorities: to defund Obamacare even if it meant a shutdown. The lead of the article does this adequately. Following WP:UNDUE, and reading random selections of web news articles, I'll leave this as it is.
JamesThomasMoon1979 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
a. Take this sentence
"In April 2011, Republicans in the House of Representatives threatened to shut down the government unless".
The Republican-lead House presented a spending appropriations bill (albeit, a contentious bill) and Republicans knew beforehand that it was likely the Senate would refuse it. However, there is little literary weight given to the fact the Senate refused the bill.
b. The three year long narrative within the Preceding events puts the focus and intentions of a shutdown only on Republicans. Despite the Democrat-lead Senate and President being a key part of why The Shutdown occurred.
This article has no long exposition on the recent history (with implied scheming) of how the Senate came to be majority Democrat.
c. The article picks cherry-picks sentences like this from a Washington Post article
"House Republicans gave Speaker John Boehner an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparations for a possible shutdown"
But this sentence, from the same article, is not included
"Republicans and Democrats are eager to avoid a shutdown in part because neither side thinks it will be able to claim political advantage."
This is another implication that Republicans were scheming for a shutdown. However, they were clearly scheming to defund Obamacare. These are different things.
No, they aren't. The Republican Party never had the ability to defund Obamacare. Ever. Any such "scheme" was impossible and delusional. That's not a claim, that's a fact rooted in the Constitution. Repealing an enacted law requires majorities of both houses of Congress and the assent of the president, or two-thirds majorities of both houses. Such an outcome was never remotely politically plausible and everyone knew it. What the Republicans did have was the supposed leverage to shut down the government if they couldn't get Obamacare defunded, by refusing to pass a budget bill. And so they shut down the government. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Repealing" is different than "funding" ("defunding", in this case). Where did you find this information about the inability to defund Obamacare? I couldn't find a good explanation of this. This sounds like important data to clarify.
JamesThomasMoon1979 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Like Social Security and Medicare, the Affordable Care Act is funded by so-called "mandatory appropriations" - that is, the law provides that money to pay for its provisions is automatically appropriated every year. That is enacted law of the land. This means that in order to "defund Obamacare," a new law would have to be enacted which would modify or repeal that mandatory appropriation. Such a new law would, of course, have to pass both houses of Congress by 66% supermajorities (because obviously Obama would veto it). There was never the slightest chance that two-thirds of either house of Congress would vote for such a law, let alone both. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
According to some sources, that is the case: mandatory spending was in place for most major parts of Obamacare.
Writer Andrew C. McCarthy contends
agconservative is correct that the House could not unilaterally have defunded Obamacare, and I do not contend otherwise. The House can unilaterally refuse to pass any spending bills; but to excise a specific spending program that has already been authorized by prior law, a bill to that effect must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president (or, if the president vetoes, passed by in both chambers by the required override margin). The passage of a new law was exactly what the defunders were trying to accomplish.
If McCarthy is correct, this has been explained incorrectly by nearly everyone involved. The goal of Republicans was to pass a new law that would allow the possibility of defunding Obamacare.
JamesThomasMoon1979 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
d. Why include the following connection?
"a coalition of conservative activists led by former Reagan administration Attorney General Ed Meese (who is also an emeritus fellow of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation)... they could persuade congressional Republicans to threaten cutting off financing for the entire federal government."
There are no sentences like
"a coalition of one Democrat led by Harry Reid who has connections to Democrat-leaning think tanks demanded Obamacare or else they would shutdown the government".
This is because Obamacare is already law, making it the default and status quo position. Certain Republicans desired to change that status quo and asserted that they would refuse to pass a budget that did not contain provisions repealing the ACA. This is so clearly the historical record as to be irrefutable fact. Refusing to give into a hostage threat is not the same as making a hostage threat, and Wikipedia is not required to treat them equally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a good point about establishing a status quo or typical position. The Republican proposals appear to be the unusual introduction.
JamesThomasMoon1979 08:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Overall, the entire Reactions section and part of the Preceding events seems written by someone that had a strong opinion about The Shutdown and is very aware and in favor of current American Left political intentions. This clear in the choice of sentences to quote and adjectives to use. Despite the The Shutdown being the result of decisions from both Houses and both major parties.
This article would much improved if the Preceding events section used neutral language and added exposition about the Senate refusal decisions.
And, this article would much improved if the Reactions section had counter-balancing quotations or, preferably, much less space given to opinions.
JamesThomasMoon1979 00:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Overall, the entire Reactions section and part of the Preceding events seems written by someone that had a strong opinion about The Shutdown and is very aware and in favor of current American Left political intentions." - That may be the perception for some readers, but bear in mind that the Preceding Events section and the Reactions section were largely written by different contributors, not by a single contributor with a single overarching interpretation of the history. Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Why always mention Koch Brothers , their connections and their wealth" - The Koch brothers are mentioned in this article because the Stolberg article in the New York Times indicated the that Koch brothers were an important source of funding for organizations that were behind the effort to defund Obamacare during this past year since Obama began his second term. Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Yet there are no such connections explained in detail for groups that refused to accept the House-presented spending appropriations bill." - What organizations do you have in mind and what are the sources discussing their relationship to the shutdown? Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Why not describe the Tea Party as the "blue-collar funded, grass-roots organized Tea Party" ? These are generally considered positive terms but there are no such adjectives preceding the mention of that group." - I had not noticed that the article describes the Tea Party in either positive or negative terms, nor should it. What sources describe the Tea Party as solely a blue-collar funded, grass-roots organization? Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"Why not describe Senate Democrats or the Democrat President that refused to sign the bill as billionaire funded?" - I'm sure there are other Wikipedia articles that mention billionaire supporters of Democrats. But what sources are there that tie funding sources to the Democratic position on refusing to pass appropriations bills defunding Obamacare or on the shutdown? Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"The Preceding events weaves together a narrative that the Republicans threatened and intended to shutdown the Federal Government.... The three year long narrative within the Preceding events puts the focus and intentions of a shutdown only on Republicans." - What sources are there showing that Democratic candidates for office, sitting Democratic legislators, former members of the Democratic congressional leadership, or Democratic political commentators were calling for using the threat of a shutdown to achieve political aims, whether related to shaping the federal budget, or determining changes in federal regulatory authority, or legislating on social issues like abortion? What sources say that Democratic supporters were holding rallies calling for shutting down the government? What sources say that among the general public, those self-identifying with the Democratic Party felt that government leaders should risk shutting down the government rather than yield on their positions in order to find a compromise and reach a budget agreement? Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"This is another implication that Republicans were scheming for a shutdown. However, they were clearly scheming to defund Obamacare. These are different things." - The article says MULTIPLE times that the Republicans' main objectives were to reduce government spending and to repeal or limit Obamacare, and that they viewed threatening to shut down the government as a means of achieving those ends. It does not say that they aimed to shut down the government solely for the sake of shutting down the government. Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"This article has no long exposition on the recent history (with implied scheming) of how the Senate came to be majority Democrat." - Not sure I follow what you are getting at with this statement. A number of sources state that the conditions for the shutdown were set when the powers of the government were divided between the two parties, which happened when the Republicans took control of the House. What sources say that the Democrats having taken control of the Senate led to the shutdown? Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
"they could persuade congressional Republicans to threaten cutting off financing for the entire federal government" - The line in the Stolberg article that that phrasing was based on was: "It [the Republican activists' 'blueprint to defunding Obamacare' memo] articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government." If you have a better way of putting it, then by all means, make a suggestion and let's talk about it. Dezastru (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Power of the Purse" debate


To NorthBySouthBaranof: You appear to be ignorant of the long tradition by which the Congress uses the Power of the purse to support or oppose the actions of the executive department. Indeed, this was the original basis for the separation of the legislative body from the monarchy. The king needed the legitimacy conferred by representatives of the people in order to be able to impose taxes. So he created the legislature for that purpose. But the legislature imposed conditions on granting money to the king and used that leverage to gain the power to: make laws, approve official appointments, etc.. Refusing to fund implementation of Obamacare is well within the normal use of the power of the purse. You also ignore the fact that the Democrats have publicly stated that the reason that they did not pass the original CR or the mini-CRs sent over from the House was to keep the political pressure on the Republicans to pass a full and "clean" CR ("clean" meaning that it funds Obamacare). This choice by the Senate was the choice which shutdown the government. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The money was already granted to the ACA, through a mandatory appropriation outside the annual budget process. Those appropriations were already made and assented to by Congress. The GOP never had the ability to repeal that existing law. Control of one house of Congress does not give carte blanche to impose one's policy goals through the budget process.
The House has the right to pass whatever it wants. The Senate has the right to reject whatever it wants. The President has the right to veto whatever he wants. There was never a plausible scenario in which a Democratic Senate or Democratic President would support repealing the law. Ergo, the House position was fantasy. Republicans in both houses have admitted that the strategy, such as it was, was a terrible mistake and doomed to fail.
Using a government shutdown as leverage to enact policy goals is a catastrophically stupid idea, and opinion polls have clearly demonstrated where the public has laid the blame. Attempts at post-facto rehabilitation of this political disaster must inevitably fail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The money was already granted to the ACA, through a mandatory appropriation outside the annual budget process. Those appropriations were already made and assented to by Congress.
Most news articles read as though all of Obamacare would be defunded. Where did you find information about the breakdown of mandatory appropriations? I'm interested to know exactly what funding was not affected by the House budget proposals. (I also asked this question above).
JamesThomasMoon1979 08:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This Congressional Research Service report does a good job breaking it down. The major provisions of the ACA were established in law with indefinite "mandatory" appropriations provided to fund their operations. Those appropriations continue into the future forever without limitation unless affirmatively repealed by a future law. This is similar to provisions in Medicare and Social Security. To remove those appropriations and "defund Obamacare," an entirely new law would have to be enacted which affirmatively repealed the statute providing for the mandatory appropriations. That was never remotely a plausible political outcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If one only considered the short-term political implications, it was a mistake. But that only because the media (dominated by Democrats) sided with the Democrat interpretation of events. In the longer term (and not so long judging by the furor about the failure of the Obamacare website), the truth will out and the Republicans will be seen to have been correct by History.
From an ethical point of view, the action of the "'no' caucus" or Tea Party faction of the Republicans was obligatory. Any vote for a bill which supports (directly or indirectly) the implementation of a law which so violently attacks individual rights is itself a moral crime. Seen this way, the Tea Party was merely doing the least which they could do ethically; the others (Democrats and moderate Republicans) were acting in an extremely corrupt (and unconstitutional) manner. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If the history of Medicare is any indication, Republicans will be the ones enacting massive expansions of Obamacare in another 40 years, claiming all along that it was their idea. (Which has a grain of truth to it.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ted Cruz, is that you?! Seriously though, give it a rest. This is not the place to push your hyper-partisan re-imagining of events.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is personal now. It appears that there is no way that my family can avoid being hit by Obamacare's penalty. Because the small-minds who designed this system did not contemplate a family situation like mine, I cannot get insurance, but I must have it anyway or else. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
That issue has been resolved. But the Maryland Health Exchange website still refuses to recognize that I exist and let me create an account. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias et al.

My favorite so far has been the recent addition by a user who cited a Politco article to declare that this is the second GOP led shutdown since 1996. Wherein after reading the FIRST paragraph of the article Politico clearly states "It’s the first government shutdown since 1996". (Copy/Pasted). Thus any point regarding the existence of bias, that, holds esoteric, philosophical, or even opinion as the foundation; simply ignores the blatant bias that literally exists in this inaccurate misquote. (Missed signing) Webprgmr15 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

American Congress, Two Parts, House and Senate: For Foreigners and Rudimentary Americans

I'd be happy to explain it. This conflict is a result of two parties in the US Congress not being able to agree to pass a law to the President for signing. One "side" is the US Democrats (Blue), and "the other" is the Republicans (Red): AKA the GOP.

If the two "sides" (you might also remember these being called "Chambers"—they're different, but each "side" is currently in control of only one chamber) of Congress cannot agree whatsoever, nothing can be signed by the President, period. He cannot pass bills into law. This is different from a presidential veto where the President sends something back for reconsideration. In this instance, US government is literally paralyzed into inaction until concessions are made or "bipartisanship" is practiced.

By editing the main article to imply that Obama and the democrats are on one side, and the republicans on another...it simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the checks and balances system and how it works. If Congress itself cannot "pass laws" or "authorize a budget" the President cannot sign it because it does not exist for him/her to sign.71.91.170.94 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a fair point, Constitutionally speaking, but as the first few paragraphs of our own article on the presidency note, the POTUS is effectively in charge of his party's legislative agenda. Obama has made numerous statements regarding the impending shutdown, has negotiated with Republican leadership, etc. It would be highly misleading to say that he had no role in the conflict, regardless of the fact that he has no direct authority here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Reality has a well-known liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.12.26 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias, Inaccuracy in "Preceding events and issues" Section

The second paragraph of the "Preceding events and issues" section is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The budget process leads up to the appropriations process, but it is not the lack of a budget that required a CR. It was Congress not having passed appropriations bills timely. Also, it was not the Senate that proposed the CR. The CR originated in the House (and the bill has bounced back and forth multiple times). The sources for this paragraph are largely left-leaning opinion pieces that argue a viewpoint about the motivations of the House's leadership. There's certainly a theory there that could be described as such, but it's far from a definitive account of why certain decisions were taken. I'd fix these things myself, but along with the lateness of the hour, I'd prefer to let the primary author of that language clean it up if he or she likes. JimHarperDC (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Too long? If so, how to split?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been proposed for almost 7 months now, and there is clearly no consensus to split the article at this time. There is some suggestion that the article remains too long due to redundancy. This can be discussed in a new section. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A reader has tagged the article as needing to be split into separate articles to reduce the length of the article. Is there agreement that the article needs to be split? And if so, which section or sections should be split out? Dezastru (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Split "Reactions" section - I support splitting off the reactions section and leaving a summary intact. I mentioned this before, but the discussion got archived. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No. The article has already been split once, yielding List of US federal government agencies and operations affected by the shutdown of 2013. I see no need to split it again. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No I think this article is too long not because the breadth of coverage is too wide, but because there's too much redundant information. This is a prime example of Recency bias: The entire internet was enamored with newws and information about the shutdown, but much of this information is either oudated, unencyclopediac or redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyfence (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
No The "Reactions" section is not long enough on its own to require splitting. Tn5421 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Some parts of the article refer to 2013 events as they are concurrent.

As the subject says. This is probably caused by the article being written 'day-to-day' as the events unfolded. However 4 years later it may be confusing for the reader to read events described as they were in the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.224.80 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. 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:

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) 21:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_United_States_federal_government_shutdown/Archive_4&oldid=1086310118"