Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II[edit]

Self-nomination: have spent a fair amount of time on this. I have summarised each of the sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act to give people a chance to understand what this complex bit of legislation is all about. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - a well referenced and informative article that I hope to soon support. There are, however, a couple of problems - the article lacks any pictorial or graphical element and there are, perhaps, some missing sections. To address my first issue, you could include images (an opponent arguing against a clause in Congress, for example) or a graph. My second point is to do with the fact that the article seems to only be a summary of each of the sections contained. Was there no media reaction to any of these sections or this title as a whole? Have any political commentators made points concerning any of these? What implications do they have? Are there any precedents for some of the rights granted to the government by this title? I understand there is it is hard trying to seperate material that should be included in this article and the material that should be included in a the broader article concerning the Act in general, but perhaps you could come up with a few things? If you have considerable reason for not including these extra sections just reply to this post - convince me. --159.92.101.26 11:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (I wasn't signed in, university network - Oldak Quill 11:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Hmmm... you could be right at that. Out of interest, do you know where I should start looking? I think I might need to withdraw this nomination... but might let it run for a little while if its OK with everyone. People might be able to give me some valuable advise... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd take some keywords which are specific to this Title, or section names and start searching media websites for articles which make specific references to Sections in this Title. Can you read debate transcripts from Congress? If so, try and get some good supporting and opposing quotes. This would give you an opportunity to include images of those who supplied the quote and have "Support", "Criticism" and "Media reaction" sections. You could also take a look at books that examine the Bush administration so far (Michael Moore and others of his genre). --Oldak Quill 11:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, though sadly I don't think that Michael Moore would have actually read the USA PATRIOT Act... :P Just kidding! Ta bu shi da yu 12:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ -- This appears to be a very well-researched and informative article, but does not provide the breadth of coverage or context necessary for a featured article. As the above commenter suggests, the article does not place this Title within the larger contexts of society, the media, debates on civil rights, or the structure of the Patriot Act. A Featured Article needs to be more than a comprehensive reference -- an uninformed reader needs to be convinced that the topic is interesting, and to be led through an understanding of the subject. At minimum, I would look for 1-2 paragraphs giving background on the Patriot Act (as if the reader had never heard of it), several paragraphs summarizing the contents of this title, historical information about the powers granted and how they differ from the previous law. The enumerated list of sections is very helpful, but I'm not sure that it would be strictly required in a featured article. You should be very proud of yourself, because you've created what is probably one of the best resources on this anywhere on the internet. That should be recognized, and you might want to see if the EFF or the ACLU would be interested in this material, or if there's an alternative superlative on Wikipedia. But frankly, it may be difficult (though certainly not impossible) to get an article about such a specific topic up to Featured Article status. -- Creidieki 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put in a bit of context on the Patriot Act and how Title II specifically functions, relating to FISA 1978 and summarizing supporting/opposing opinions. Take a look. -- Jonel | Speak 01:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral It's still a lot less context and analysis than I would want from a standalone article...but maybe that's the problem. This isn't a standalone article, it's meant to be a subarticle. I don't know how to judge a subarticle for Featured Article status; it's very different. I need to think about the topic some more, and maybe it's not fair for me to vote against this article simply because it only makes sense in the context of the other Patriot Act articles. I'm withdrawing my vote. -- Creidieki 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, stick to your guns. I can see that I have more to go! I'll be writing more of a summary of the title soon, along with criticism and commentary. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The thing is, I honestly don't know whether a "subarticle" should be judged differently because of its context as part of a group of larger articles. On Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez and Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., I've approved articles that had little to no analysis, and minimal context, because I thought that they worked well as part of the group of articles. Was I right to do that? Or is a "Featured subarticle" different than a "Featured article"? -- Creidieki 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO, a featured subarticle should be judged the same as a featured article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object The article has changed substantially since submission, and from my first read. This is reflected in my changing vote! As it stands, with a section stub still under criticism (and no mention there of criticism of 215), and (external, but related to my sunset clause concern below), given the uncertain status of the sunset clauses (Dec 31, 2005 expiry), it'd seem better to check this again when all that's resolved. Other than for those two specifics, it's a long article in an oddly detail-oriented way (it's its own format), but with the new introductory material, I find it at least meets the standard of the best of the current FAs, and also, of course, a reasonable application of the FA criteria. --Tsavage 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ~~Conditional support (Condition being resolution Cricisms section issue, discussed below... --Tsavage 20:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC))~~ - The expanded lead made all the difference. I believe the summary now provides comprehensive context for the topic, covering both the outstanding technical and social aspects in a way that is self-contained, and also points to an easy, logical (and hyperlinked) path for further reading (on issues that are clearly beyond the scope of this topic, such as the Patriot Act as a whole, civil liberties, the history of intelligence operations in the US, and so forth). I took a look at the Act itself, in what I believe was the final wording, and, while quite readable itself, the additional context provided here, with regard to the USC and FISA (clarifying what were simply citations in the Act itself), alone makes this particularly accessible. I find this is a distinct type of article, where the "short sentences, point-form" sort of critism doesn't apply. With the lead for context, and knowing this is only one of 10 sections, (and given the rather dramatic and controversial "Big Brother surveillance/fight against terroism" nature of the subject), it was engaging to read, in a very front-line, "these are the facts" way that a more conversational treatment would not have (although such an approach is quite possibly an alternative). Criticism - There should be some mention of the current state of the sunset provisions, if it is the case that they have been somehow amended? Note: I am not at all expert or particularly informed in the general subject area; if some critical aspects have been missed, they were obviously missed by me! --Tsavage 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on substantial additions: The all-new "Summary" and "Criticsms and Support" sections add a useful additional layer of synthesis and new information. They would seem to respond to the article vs subarticle discussion (previous vote). The article is now rather clearly "standalone", IMO. However, the "Criticisms..." section could become a runaway area, as the I imagine the discussion is a very large one and finding a summary middle ground with the same scope as the rest of the article (which is so detailed, going section by section) would seem to be difficult. This is not a problem as far as quality or value, but could result in a stability issue until the section is fully fleshed out, i.e. is the article really finished (for FAC purposes) yet? --Tsavage 16:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I agree that the "Criticisms and Support" section could become large if not handled well, but with its current length I don't think I can actively support the article. A couple of suggestions: How does criticism about this Title fit into the larger criticism about the Patriot Act? Does this Title contain some of the most-frequently criticised provisions? Is it often criticised *separately* from the Act at large? You might be able to get away with a few paragraphs of summary about discussion of the Patriot Act and about how discussion of this Title fits in to the larger discussions, and a conspicuous link to another article or section covering the general discussions about the Patriot Act. -- Creidieki 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to reflect this. The stub tag doesn't help. Given the controversial and far-reaching topic, I believe a separate "Controversy surrounding the Patriot Act" article is in order, although the material in the main Patriot Act article is not there yet. (Of course, the issues surrounding subarticle creation in general is another question entirely.) Would a criticism subarticle for Title II also be needed? That'd be a function of the main criticism article. In any case, until there is one, this article now seems to be the place for the Title II critical/support stuff to develop. That means, it has to get to specifics - if I read about Title II section by section, I want to know the controversies concerning each section if any. I imagine there are. For example, the Patriot Act article points to specific sections: Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 So, I don't know if "getting away" will "work"... This all gets quite wiggly... I supported the article with just the expanded lead (I felt it pointed to the Patriot Act proper for more detail on the social impact, which is a "getting away with", I suppose); it's a "better" article now with the new sections, but a different article as well, one which is harder to support as is. Effectively limiting scope is obviously a big deal, especially in cases like this... --Tsavage 20:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Consideration of unconstitionality is limited to what has already been ruled unconstitutional. This act is similar in content to the legislation in Germany that enabled Hitler to set aside unalienable rights and rule as a despot. To be unbiased the article deserves fair presentation of the growing dissatisfaction with a malignant invasive central government performing beyond the bounds of the constitution vs limited central government. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.165.252.198 (talk • contribs)
- I just noticed this: absolutely not. I totally disagree with you, whoever you are, and really must count you as uninformed. I will not be being making such invalid comparisons. I have documented the commentary by various legal scholars, however. This should be enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]