Battle of Locust Grove

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The previous version of this page was just a redirect to Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, I incorporated elements from other wikipedia pages, including Civil service General Schedule Federal Wage Grade Feel free to hack away. Jonverve (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of the US federal civil service is filled by the spoils system today? In 1909 it was apparently a third. Is it much lower now? It certainly seems significantly higher than in the UK. 86.176.118.18 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about US civil servants in states? This article deals the Federal Civil Service, not the others.
And just came to my mind: is there any civil servants at the municipality, county or whatnot level? If these also exist, should they have an own article, or this just somewhat rewritten? 85.217.22.170 14:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.217.22.170 (talk) [reply]

You are correct. There are separate civil service for each of the 50 states and each territory as well. States with strong counties (outside of the Northeast) have their own civil service. Nearly all cities are required (by their states) to have a structured bureaucracy; often towns as well. I think some states have articles on their government but usually not to this level.

We have a problem in the US. We have been building articles from the top down (like this one) and from the bottom up (like Dayton, Ohio). We have trouble with articles in between! They are poorly structured. Like a kid in school, there is an "outline" that reflects whatever we have done in the past, not where we are going!

Having said that, states should probably each have a separate article on civil service. For lower political divisions, there probably should be a general article that describe what the state has dictated for them plus some implementations. This article should be distinct from the state cs article itself. The rules would normally be completely different. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the table, I count 0.284 million for DC and 1.774 for the rest of US, totalling 2.058 million. But, I'd like to know how much there are other than federal civil servants? How about articles like Civil service in states, Civil service in counties, and so on. Actually, considering this article's name, those should be sections in this article. 85.217.15.248 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe should rename this "US federal civil service" with "see also" to "US State civil service" and "US municipal workers." Student7 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See the new article at Government employees in the United States for a broader overview of employees in the U.S. II | (t - c) 20:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States federal civil service. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520001454/http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm to http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114201419/http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm to http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114201419/http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm to http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve only spent a few seconds reading this and I can already tell that this article is not using a good mix of sources from different views. At least, that is what it seems. Dogblock (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]