![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
( 9March2012) Seems like the importance of this article is much greater now that the sequester is now in effect.
68.100.98.109 ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
(9 March 2012) "Congress fired Hartzog" Can someone explain how Congress can fire someone? I understand how the Senate can refuse to confirm a nomination and how they can impeach the President. But how can they fire someone aside from blackmailing the President (by doing something like refusing to fund the National Park Service)?
68.100.98.109 ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
John Gardner's NRO article using the term is a good example and definition: I give you the lead paragraph:
This term has been used in politics, especially on the center-right in the US since at least the Reagan administration.
It appeared in the Washington Times on 28 June 2002.
LAWeekly mentions it on 30 April 2008.
The tactic itself spans national, state, county, and municipal politics. I'm surprised there isn't an article on it already. Oh well, once more into the breach! TMLutas ( talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Years ago (in the mid-1980s) the New Republic had an article about this (triggered by the NPS's announcement that it would have to limit the Washington Monument's hours as a result of Gramm-Rudman-enforced budget cuts. But they called it the "Firemen First" syndrome. Might be worth looking up and using as a source. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Tag & Assess -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this edit for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see what the edit has to do with WMS, as it's actually the reverse of it, not a variation.See [ WP:OFFTOPIC] for the relevant guideline. Also, the term "Congressmen Last" is unsourced and seems to be original research ( WP:OR). Please cite your reasoning that this should be in the article before you re-add it. Ultra Venia ( talk) 05:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Because the article is locked I propose here the removal of the sentences "or a government shutdown." and "This is done to gain support for tax increases that the public would otherwise be against." as they both are unsupported opinions.
The government shutdown closes many things, both visible and not. As such the definition does not fit as they are required by law to be closed as non-essential, that these closures are more visible and made part of media attention then closures of more bureaucratic nature is inconsequential to the fact that the closures themselves are not by choice and don't fit the article.
The claim "This is done to gain support for tax increases that the public would otherwise be against." is simply unsubstantiated partisan opinion. The use of the phrase is about ways to counter budget cuts, not raising tax levels. They are not the same.
If there are sources found using the term for such uses, they then can be reinstated and the definition reworked, right now however they should be removed. Culculhen ( talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to say right now that this is perhaps not the best time to be editing the document, considering the line being considered for editing is related to current substantially large political events. I'm a Wikipedia newbie so I am not certain if there is an applicable rule or guideline that relates to such issues of editing things related to current events. The concept is very easily recognizable as being relevant, though. 68.110.167.108 ( talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The proper method of challenging fact is to add a citation request tag and let it hang out for awhile. There's plenty of documentation out there by political professionals that this is, indeed, what is going on. Removal of material is what's done when nobody can substantiate the cite request after a reasonable period of time. Depending on how lively the community is, reasonable can be bigger or smaller. If somebody drops by to do an edit every three months, it's not reasonable to wait a week and then kill the text. The request is likely not going to be seen. On the other hand if a lot of people are looking at the page, the wait time can be shrunk down somewhat. The point is to put the cite request tag so people understand that there is a controversy there and then try to work it out. TMLutas ( talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Could someone remove/re-word the "This Obama administration innovation" line? That's some pretty biased language. Suzushiiro ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Section on the 2013 shutdown is wrong claiming that monuments were not shutdown in the 1995 shutdown
This article [1] has pictures and shows that most if not all the same parts of government were shutdown.
Thanks for taking a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.94.110 ( talk) 17:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The subchapter on the 2013 government shutdown is clearly critical of the Obama administration, including citing rightwing media to support its claims. The article should probably cleaned up big time--it's sort of useless, when you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.107.71 ( talk) 20:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I found this sentence particularly confusing: "This Obama administration innovation faced daily..." Is the 'innovation' the closing of normally unstaffed monuments or does it refer to the closing of private parks on federal land? This sentence is also a good candidate for citation since it's not common knowledge what precisely forced the closures: was it explicit instructions from someone in the Obama administration; was it a direct consequence of no longer having spending authority... what was the exact cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.253.71 ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this English?
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
( 9March2012) Seems like the importance of this article is much greater now that the sequester is now in effect.
68.100.98.109 ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
(9 March 2012) "Congress fired Hartzog" Can someone explain how Congress can fire someone? I understand how the Senate can refuse to confirm a nomination and how they can impeach the President. But how can they fire someone aside from blackmailing the President (by doing something like refusing to fund the National Park Service)?
68.100.98.109 ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
John Gardner's NRO article using the term is a good example and definition: I give you the lead paragraph:
This term has been used in politics, especially on the center-right in the US since at least the Reagan administration.
It appeared in the Washington Times on 28 June 2002.
LAWeekly mentions it on 30 April 2008.
The tactic itself spans national, state, county, and municipal politics. I'm surprised there isn't an article on it already. Oh well, once more into the breach! TMLutas ( talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Years ago (in the mid-1980s) the New Republic had an article about this (triggered by the NPS's announcement that it would have to limit the Washington Monument's hours as a result of Gramm-Rudman-enforced budget cuts. But they called it the "Firemen First" syndrome. Might be worth looking up and using as a source. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Tag & Assess -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this edit for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see what the edit has to do with WMS, as it's actually the reverse of it, not a variation.See [ WP:OFFTOPIC] for the relevant guideline. Also, the term "Congressmen Last" is unsourced and seems to be original research ( WP:OR). Please cite your reasoning that this should be in the article before you re-add it. Ultra Venia ( talk) 05:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Because the article is locked I propose here the removal of the sentences "or a government shutdown." and "This is done to gain support for tax increases that the public would otherwise be against." as they both are unsupported opinions.
The government shutdown closes many things, both visible and not. As such the definition does not fit as they are required by law to be closed as non-essential, that these closures are more visible and made part of media attention then closures of more bureaucratic nature is inconsequential to the fact that the closures themselves are not by choice and don't fit the article.
The claim "This is done to gain support for tax increases that the public would otherwise be against." is simply unsubstantiated partisan opinion. The use of the phrase is about ways to counter budget cuts, not raising tax levels. They are not the same.
If there are sources found using the term for such uses, they then can be reinstated and the definition reworked, right now however they should be removed. Culculhen ( talk) 12:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to say right now that this is perhaps not the best time to be editing the document, considering the line being considered for editing is related to current substantially large political events. I'm a Wikipedia newbie so I am not certain if there is an applicable rule or guideline that relates to such issues of editing things related to current events. The concept is very easily recognizable as being relevant, though. 68.110.167.108 ( talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The proper method of challenging fact is to add a citation request tag and let it hang out for awhile. There's plenty of documentation out there by political professionals that this is, indeed, what is going on. Removal of material is what's done when nobody can substantiate the cite request after a reasonable period of time. Depending on how lively the community is, reasonable can be bigger or smaller. If somebody drops by to do an edit every three months, it's not reasonable to wait a week and then kill the text. The request is likely not going to be seen. On the other hand if a lot of people are looking at the page, the wait time can be shrunk down somewhat. The point is to put the cite request tag so people understand that there is a controversy there and then try to work it out. TMLutas ( talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Could someone remove/re-word the "This Obama administration innovation" line? That's some pretty biased language. Suzushiiro ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Section on the 2013 shutdown is wrong claiming that monuments were not shutdown in the 1995 shutdown
This article [1] has pictures and shows that most if not all the same parts of government were shutdown.
Thanks for taking a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.94.110 ( talk) 17:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The subchapter on the 2013 government shutdown is clearly critical of the Obama administration, including citing rightwing media to support its claims. The article should probably cleaned up big time--it's sort of useless, when you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.107.71 ( talk) 20:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I found this sentence particularly confusing: "This Obama administration innovation faced daily..." Is the 'innovation' the closing of normally unstaffed monuments or does it refer to the closing of private parks on federal land? This sentence is also a good candidate for citation since it's not common knowledge what precisely forced the closures: was it explicit instructions from someone in the Obama administration; was it a direct consequence of no longer having spending authority... what was the exact cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.253.71 ( talk) 07:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this English?