Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Holman Rule

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Holman Rule

[edit]
(
)
Source: "The Holman Rule... empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program." [1]

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

  • Review – Note: I have done some copyedits and clean-up, and though I added the reference of exceptions from Deschler's, I do not consider myself to have done enough to be unable to evaluate this nomination.
  • Article is new enough and long enough, and cited. It does not lack neutrality, but it is incomplete.
  • I am concerned about inconsistencies in the content and between the article and the hook and the sources. The sources speak of reducing the salary of targeted employees to $1, but the articles speak of firing. Though the former may have the effect of forcing a resignation and thus have the effect of the latter, they are not the same. This needs to be clarified and resolved. The source cited above also says "any member of Congress" but the United States Congress includes the Senate and the article and other sources speak of a House of Representatives rule. It may be that the hook needs to speak of reducing salary to $1.
  • On the hook, I'm also not keen on "newly reinstated", I would say when - either January 2017 or at the start of the XXth Congress or something like that. "Propose firing" also needs clarification, because it is a proposal to the House which, if passed as part of an appropriations bill, becomes a mandate. After all, a Member of Congress can write a letter to someone's boss proposing that s/he be fired, but the boss can ignore it. We are talking here about something much more draconian, where federal employees are potentially threatened. The hook needs to be neutral, but also to accurately portray the facts.
  • Earwig raises only the quotation from Deschler's, which is appropriately identified and supported, so no copyvio issues, and no problematic paraphrasing of the sources noted. The commentary in the articles could be expanded, too, and also some recognition that the quotations from Deschler's were published in 1994, and so is the version as was eliminated in 1983... is the 2017 version the same? Certainly the sources provided do not establish that, nor does the article address the issue. Also, should the dissent from Republicans and the unanimous opposition from Democrats in passing the new rules package is due some notice. Covering these issues in a policy-compliant manner is a challenge and is not (technically) an expansion required under DYK rules. However, in presenting an article like this on the main page at a period of time when the topic of the rule and politics in general is highly contentious, I think it behoves us to avoid highlighting an article where obvious questions can be raised and yet go unaddressed.
  • QPQ done as required.
  • The inconsistencies noted need to be resolved, and a new hook wording proposed. The areas not covered should be addressed, and I hope that Antony-22 as the article creator will choose to take on that challenge. EdChem (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review. First off, upon doing the research for this article I discovered that there's nothing significant about the amount of $1; the rule allows salaries to be cut to any amount or for a position st be eliminated completely. This source says that there is no evidence that the rule has ever been historically used to cut a salary to an inappropriate level, and I haven't seen any comments from any lawmakers advocating to use it in this way. My guess is that some PR person came up with the $1 line to draw attention to it, and I think we have a responsibility on Wikipedia to avoid repeating clickbait.
Good catch on checking the new wording; it is slightly different so I have included both in the article. Also, it's specifically a House rule and so doesn't directly affect the Senate, so the source may be using the informal use of "Congresspeople" to refer only to House members. The final paragraph of the article already briefly states the Republican and Democratic viewpoints on the rule. The following hook is more specific as you requested, but the original hook is more succinct and still accurate. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Calling for a second opinion. The updated text from the 2017 version is clear on reducing salary of "any person" and reducing numbers, but not (to me) clear on the ability to fire individuals, and "proposing firing" is something anyone can do any time, and be ignored. This is including in legislation a mandate that a person's salary must be reduced, or the number of people reduced. I am not comfortable that the hook is accurate. I will post at WT:DYK for another opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The effective text is "the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States"; the "number" part is where the proposals of firing come from. It might help if it can be demonstrated that both (contemporary) liberal and conservative sources say that the rule allows firing of individuals. The Deschler's Precidents source seems to be neutral and reliable, being published long before the current controversy, and it give specific examples of amendments firing individuals in the past. Here's a more specific and wordier hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A follow-up review still needs to be performed for this to move forward, or perhaps a new review from a different user. North America1000 08:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed. Thank you to anyone who takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's do this review...
    • Article: New, more than sufficient length. Copyvio check is alright (direct quotations cited correctly).
    • Hook: Alt 2 accepted. 194 characters. Definitely interesting as to how you can fire someone through a bill.
    • QPQ: Check.
    • Images: None.
OK for Alt 2 - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Holman_Rule&oldid=945138250"