The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Rfv-sense "To lay off (from employment) in response to funding cuts made by the Budget Control Act of 2011." Very specific and only two years old. Is it attested? - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Did that sense develop as early as two years ago? The basic sense may have developed a sense somehow specific to the recent budgetary unpleasantness, metonymically shifting its object from funds, to departments, to employees. But use with this last object may not have emerged until sequester became a likelihood and its consequences obvious. I suppose the search for early use should be for "he|she|they|we|employees|workers" "going to|will" "be sequestered". Also, for most federal employees, sequester means a reduction of days worked, not layoffs. It might be contractor employees who would get laid off. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- RFV failed: no quotations provided; an oddly specific sense. As an auxi check, absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)