Talk:Government shutdown

MOS rules

I've bypassed MOS rules for disambiguation pages, making it unambiguously look like a navigation list, as many people is leaving feedback as if it was the main article. Once the current crisis passes, it should be restored to a more standard DAB style. Diego (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What *IS* this ???

Need clarity of content. It is not clear that this is not an article -- it's not starting by saying a scope or that it is a navigation list, and not shown as a DAB link on the major article Government shutdown in the United States or any guide in talk as to what to put here. If no one can make intended content and use clear I think this can and should be deleted. Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

See Also seems unrelated items

All of the items in the see also list seem unrelated to the topic of Government shutdown in American Politics:

• Shutdown (The West Wing) - is fictional television episode
• Failed state -- world events (seems hyperbole editorialising loss of perspective over the defined US budget process)
• Government failure, economics concept of inefficient markets when government involved (a comment on Obamacare ?)
• Lockout (industry), a private-sector practice

Markbassett (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Systemic bias

There isn't currently any mention of government shutdowns outside the United States. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's largely because there are no government shutdowns outside the United States. It's a particularity of the US structure of government. Diego (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So what precludes (a) mentioning some theoretical academic discussion on the general concept of government shutdowns and/or (b) merging this with Government shutdown in the United States, which appears to cover everything currently on the disambig? (This is not my academic field of study, so I would have some difficulty finding sources.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As all items on this "disambiguation" page clearly pertain to Government shutdown in the United States, page has been redirected there. Personally I think the page titles should be swapped and "Government shutdown in the US" should redirect here, but I'm not motivated enough to start a page-move discussion/vote. --SchutteGod 75.83.117.142 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Existence of the Article

I am a bit conflicted over the existence of this article.

I created it following this discussion about whether the America-Specific article would be better served in the proposed location of this article, and the consensus was that it wasn't, but the reason's differed, from "shutdowns exist elsewhere" to "shutdowns only exist in the United States".

Government shutdowns seem typically to refer to an American-Specific event, where the government runs out of money and must cease operations. However, this American-Centric view is disputed by a few things; first, articles discussing American Shutdowns reference pre-1982 "Shutdowns", when the government kept operating; second, American Articles sometimes discuss events in other nations in terms of them being "Shutdowns", and third, while I have, as of yet, been unable to find an explicit example of a non-US Government running out of money, I have found systems where it is theoretically possible, in some of which (Northern Ireland) it was just days away before the sup-national Government stepped in.

With that said, I have requested this be moved to main space, and should others step in and believe the term is inappropriate, then I defer to their better judgement.

-- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the term "shutdown" is ever applied to the failure to form a government in parliamentary systems. The article 2007–11 Belgian political crisis doesn't use the word "shutdown" once. Also, government services do not cease when this happens. Also, keep in mind that the word "government" has a completely different meaning in parliamentary systems: it refers specifically to the cabinet, the top-level ministers belonging to the party or coalition in control, not to the entire state apparatus. So I don't think it's appropriate to cover these two topics in one article because they are completely disparate topics described with different words.

That being said, there appears to be no article at all on Government formation (though there is a whole category of articles about specific instances), or on lapses in government formation, so perhaps those articles should be written. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the cited sources don't support that the Fixed-term Parliaments act makes a shutdown possible in the UK. The Northern Ireland situation is cited to a few sentences in the Washington Post article, but the BBC one doesn't clearly indicate that government services were about to be curtailed. I'd like to see much better sourcing to verify that. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits removing Belgium for the moment; the sources directly compare it to the American one; even if it is not a shutdown in the American sense (though some parts of American Media seem to disagree) that doesn't mean it isn't, and it definitely doesn't mean we get to decide whether the sources are right or wrong.

As for Britain, along the same lines as above; if Belgium meets, then Britain could meet, and so I have removed the citation needed segment as the article doesn't state anything beyond this (it doesn't state that an American-style shutdown is possible) and thus the citations are sufficient for the current content. It probably could have a US style shutdown, and mentioning that would be a worthy addition if sources could be found, but I don't really have any interest in taking this article further so I doubt I will try to hunt down such sources any time soon - I only created the article due to a request on the US Government Shutdowns page. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've also reverted the citation needed segment on the collapse of the power-sharing agreement; the article stated that the power-sharing agreement has yet to be, and needs to be, restored, and thus it has collapsed. However, I recognize that source explicitly stating the power-sharing agreement has collapsed would be preferable, so I will go look for one. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Added several more citations, particularly focused on the under-cited Northern Ireland Power-Sharing Agreement collapse segment. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current citations are very weak on the use of the word "shutdown" for a failure to form a parliamentary government. Of the six sources in the Belgium section, only the New American source explicitly refers to it as a government shutdown, and I'm not sure how reliable that source is given that it is a clearly partisan publication. I would like to see multiple mainstream European sources that use the word "shutdown", in a context where it's not an offhand comparison to the American situation.

I actually did a Google search on the UK situation, and I couldn't find any reliable sources stating that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act made a government shutdown (in the sense of furloughs) a possibility. I did find a handful of offhand, one-sentence mentions of the idea, and a Reddit thread speculating about it. So until this can be reliably sourced, it's OR. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the New Statesman article does not state or imply that government shutdowns are possible in the UK. Please do not remove the tags until this is resolved. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As part of the additional sources I provided I added one for the UK situation. It doesn't state a furlough is possible (though I feel a statement to that end would be wp:synth rather than OR, as it would be a synth of the articles stating that a shutdown isn't possible in Westminster Systems due to Parliamentary Convention, and the fact that said convention has been abolished in Britain), but as the article does not state or imply that it does it should not be a problem. In regards to the New Statesmen, I'll move that citation to the end of the line and thus together with the Guardian one it can explain how Britain is in this situation, and support the fact that such an event is termed a shutdown. However, I note that you imply above that you found sources supporting the notion that Britain can have a non-American style shutdown. Perhaps you can provide those, such that we can contribute together to this article, rather than just throwing Citation needed tags out there?

As for the New American, it does seem an... interesting... publication, to put it mildly, but it hasn't been declared non-grata by Wikipedia, as so for the moment I think it is best to let it stand. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Found a reliable source supporting an American-style shutdown being on the table in Britain over Brexit, though if you found sources other than that one then I would appreciate you providing them. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Found and added a source explicitly stating that a shutdown is possible due to the change in convention due to the Fixed Parliaments Act. Any of the sources you have found would still be welcome, though. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any sources reliably supporting a UK shutdown. An offhand remark in an article about another topic isn't good enough in the absence of substantive coverage in a reliable source. I reworded the UK section to make it clear that people have speculated about the possibility of a shutdown, but it's still not entirely clear that one could actually happen.

As for Belgium, so far I see absolutely no significant usage of the term "shutdown" except for that one New American article. Regardless of whether we consider that a reliable publication, substantive use in just one article isn't enough. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If MPs are at the point of threatening a shutdown, I think it is quite obvious one can happen, but I have left the terminology as you put it, though I have also reinstated the removed source with a brief mention that some believe one has already occurred. As for the Belgian Comparison, substantiate use in one source and passing use elsewhere is enough to get the situation a mention; there is clearly a lack of definition around the term, and the article should reflect that and not try to push a consensus that doesn't exist. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The source you restored is an opinion piece that claims neither that the Brexit debate has caused a curtailment of government services nor a failure to form a government. In any case, I'm going to request some more eyes on this so we can get it resolved. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP it, as a non-blog, is considered a reliable source. Getting additional eyes on this sounds good; my overall point is that just because a use of the term doesn't meet an individual editors belief of the proper use of the term doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here if it is used in such a manner by a reliable source. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)