Talk:Dismissal (employment)

Title for this page

I just made this a separate article from Termination of employment today in order to make the reading on the topic more coherent. I would like some input as to what the best title for the article should be. For now, I made it "firing," but it may be better off under a different title, such as "involuntary termination of employment" or "dismissal (employment)." Hellno2 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what is the origin of the term?

This photo, of a painting in an Indian military museum suggests the answer. http://newenergytimes.com/BubbleTrouble/Britishers-Firing-An-Indian.jpg StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin

The origin of the term, as currently explained is unlikely, and falls into the realm of "folk etymology". See [1] and [2]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict

I did not "insert information with a cite needed tag". I added "citation needed" tag to verifiable text added by Gruitness, which you deleted. Since Grutness aded the text, I trust them to find a good reference. Please keep in mind that in wikipedia "verifiability, not truth", and before deleting some piece of info one has to exercise due diligence to have real resons that the added information is incorrect. The piece in question is readily verifiable from multiple dictionaryes. Thank you, Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's readily verifiable as you claim, may I ask why you have not yourself provided a source? Doniago (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Info has now been properly sourced, so I'm willing to consider this resolved. Doniago (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Info would have been added sooner if it wasn't for this edit conflict. In fact, I was busy hunting down sources when you first decided that removing the added information was better than either doing a quick check yourself or simply adding a "citation needed" tag, Doniago - which would have been the far more sensible, thing to do if a quick check of the editor involved's contribs suggests a good-faith edit (and I hope mine would, all things considered). By the way, the terms "canned" and "boned" are never, to the best of my knowledge, used to mean dismissed in Commonwealth countries - I suspect they are US (or possibly US/Canada) only usages. I've certainly never encountered them among Brits, New Zealanders, South Africans, or Australians. Grutness...wha? 12:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It could just as easily be said that no edit conflict would have occurred if you had waited to provide the information until you could provide a reliable source at the same time. If we want to focus on this, which I don't particularly care to. Doniago (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Parent article move and stubification

You are invited to a discussion at Talk:Involuntary termination of employment#Renaming back and rewriting. That article used to be called "Termination of employment" and was considered a parent article of this one, but some of its voluntary-termination content was blanked and the article was later moved to "Involuntary termination of employment", which appears to duplicate the topic of this article. --Closeapple (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dismissal (employment). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110219011531/http://laidoffnation.com:80/2009/02/firedlaid-off-connotation-differences/ to http://laidoffnation.com/2009/02/firedlaid-off-connotation-differences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained cleanup tag

@Sleety Dribble: I'm not sure if I understand this POV cleanup tag. Can you explain why this tag is here? Jarble (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Is "sack" really "informal"?

I have come across the word "sack" being used in multiple reliable UK sources, such as The Guardian: "Gavin Williamson has claimed that he is the victim of a “kangaroo court” after being dramatically sacked by Theresa May [...]". I have edited out the "informal" from the lead sentence. 9³ (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Problem employees"

This section is almost entirely unsourced, and stinks of original research - the AOL link doesnt exist anymore. Going to be bold here and delete it, although feel free to revert+discuss for BRD. Couruu (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Firing (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)