Talk:Title II of the Patriot Act

Old comments
Interesting info on a Google books search - Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the heading over the sunset clause table is wrong: Title II sections set to expire on December 31, 2005. Aren't those sections the exceptions? --Tsavage 05:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I'll go double-check! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yow! You are right... bugger. I'll fix. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Resources

 * http://www.patriotdebates.com/storage/JNSL%26P%20Woods%20PA%20215%20Article.pdf
 * http://www.patriotdebates.com/
 * http://www.patriotdebates.com/section-213
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501

Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

LinkFix Dump

 * See User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

================================================================================ LinkFix Dump USA PATRIOT Act, Title II 2005-12-10.14-13-46

=
=================================================================== 2  Sunset clause -> Sunset provision 6  Crimes -> Crime 6  Telecommunications -> Telecommunication 9  Spy -> Espionage 14 First amendment rights -> First Amendment to the United States Constitution 24 District Court -> District court 28 Legal immunity -> Immunity (legal) 31 Civil action -> Lawsuit 35 Checks and balances -> Separation of powers 41 Fourth Amendment -> DISAMBIG 59 United States Federal Court -> United States federal courts 67 Terrorist organizations -> List of terrorist organisations 104 United States District Court -> United States district court 112 Cable service -> Cable television 126 United States District Courts -> United States district court 141 First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -> First Amendment to the United States Constitution 167 Seal -> DISAMBIG 179 United States states -> U.S. state 211 Middle East peace process -> Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 214 Drug trafficking -> Illegal drug trade 238 Sunset clause -> Sunset provision 284 Legal immunity -> Immunity (legal) &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) DONE

Section on efforts to extend Title II?
Does the article need coverage of the various efforts to extend Title II provisions past the sunset clause? It would seem to be...desirable, especially after the original expiration (in a couple of days), when the original Title becomes a historical matter... If so, should the scope be limited to legislative efforts (like HR 3199), or include more of the public debate, PR efforts and media coverage of this aspect? --Tsavage 16:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * hmmm... for sure! I'm not sure I'd put it in its own section myself, most likely I'd add it to either the summary or into the section on sunsets. But I think its a good idea to document this! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidently, I see what you mean by the scope of the article. I believe that this article should deal with the specific title, and any debate that deals specifically with the title. Broader public debate should be documented in the main USA PATRIOT Act article. Same with PR efforts. Media coverage should only be included if it is specifically about Title II. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Name
Must "Patriot" be ALL in capitals? It think it makes it look horrible. It would seriously look better if it was just: "USA Patriot Act, Title II". --Kilo-Lima 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym—it stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". That's why it's in capitals. It's a compromise between colloquial usage (Patriot Act, with no "USA" in front) and formal usage (the full name of the thing). -- Jonel | Speak 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Ok then! --Kilo-Lima 13:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment on last Peer Review
Unfortunately, I didn't notice the original peer review tag on this page, only the oldpeerreview added today, else I would've participated in the review...

Anyhow, as a reply to that request for comment, I think the article is going way long, to the point where it is losing (well, has lost...) its summary effect. At a certain point, no matter how clear and succinct each section of the article, having too much to read under too many headings winds up obscuring the main points. It gets confusing and hard to follow. This applies to the overall, and to individual (article) sections as well, for example, the Commentary section, and then, each of the organization subsections within that section, are each too long to effectively get across the summary of what they're about.

Splitting into subarticles (as I take it is referred to in the peer review intro: going to have to start splitting sections soon) will still necessitate summarizing those split sections, so maybe waiting until that point to see where things are would be a good idea.

Using the old "copy to fit" approach may help, as in, assigning a reasonable arbitrary length to various sections, and then (copy)writing to fit the word quota. Given the numerous similar sections, in both the main Title coverage, and the Commentary section, this seems to make sense, and is probably a good strategy for outlining/prestructuring this particular article. It can make the seemingly impossible...doable. (It's quite a lot of synthesis that shouldn't even come near NOR if done cleanly.)

I read a couple of the debates, from ABA, and although I didn't read many, my initial impression is that there are general themes within the various arguments, across individual Sections of the Title, that can be summarized, so that may be an alternative to going Section by Section in the Commentary coverage.

Bottom line, I find the article interesting, however, there may be a problem with the original format decision, to go Section by Section, as maintaining a summary style is easily lost. The Title itself is not particularly difficult to read itself, so an alternative would be to do a much more drastic, "highlights" summary as an article, and simply point to (or maybe include?) the entire Title for further reading. Done this way, the article reader would be given--armed with--a good contextual understanding to help guide them through the actual document if they wished to pursue it further, and those only wanting a more summarized view would also get what they came for. That's probably not a welcome assessment after all the work, but there it is, for your consideration... Hope that helps. --Tsavage 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully intend to cut this down to summary style, please be patient with me :) I think it is important to note that there is commentary, and to keep it with the title. I'm going to finish off the sections on The Patriot Debates, then split this off into The Patriot Debates, and summarise each argument that pertains to Title II. That is the reason it is too large. I'm also going to note the ALA's argument against section 215 very briefly as it's directly related to Title II. Then I'm going to completely recheck my facts on the summary style (reading commentary on the Title - especially from The Patriot Debates website - has made me realise that I need to rereview the sections for correctness. But I agree - it is too long. Trust me though - I will sort this out! As I say, please have some patience and I promise you it will be done :-) Incidently, I can't agree with you that the Title is not difficult to read. Section 202 was particularly difficult as it redesignated certain parts of the USC, I actually had to ask what it meant on WP:RD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Smilies can only go so far! ;) What I mean is...I'm not sure if you're finding my critique harsh or impatient... It's not meant to be. I'll help out if I get time (I was going to summarize a Partiot Debates argument, which is why I read one debate) -- I'm pretty much an "anything can be interesting" person, at least, as far as WP. My winter slow season time is gonna trail off soon, but we'll see... Have fun!! --Tsavage 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, I know that! I don't think your critique is either harsh or unfair. I'm going to start splitting the article soon :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting
OK, I've started splitting this article up, this could take a while though. Hope to get it to 60KB. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Impossible task. Someone else want to give a shot at splitting the largest section of the Patriot Debates? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * Lack of citations:


 * "Andrew C. McCarthy believed that sections 214 (deals with Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority under FISA) and 215 (expanded what records could be accessed under FISA) should be retained."
 * "Her views were opposed by Viet Dinh, who believed that such alterations would hinder terrorism investigations."
 * "...and believed that it colored his argument that section 206 should be modified."
 * "James X. Dempsey argued that section 209, which deals with the seizure of voicemails through the use of a normal search warrant, unnecessarily overlooked the importance of notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap. He believes that there is no way to seek redress under the new provisions, as those who have an ordinary search warrant against them may never find out that their voicemail has been seized."
 * These are just some of the statements made. Sources are required, plese read WP:NOR.

Iola k ana |T 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the main article, Patriot Debates? Please review Summary style. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to re-nominate the article, or go to disputes. Iola k ana |T  16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Debatus.com external link?
Is anyone interested in making an external link out to a related wiki debate on this topic on www.debatus.com, a site founded by myself and a team of Georgetown students. The debate is, "Is the Bush administration's NSA wiretapping program justifiable/legal/constitutional? Is the August, 2006 Federal Judge ruling against the program unwarranted?" In it is a substantial section about Article II of the Patriot Act. Another debate is upcoming about the Patriot Act itself. I think that doing so would fit the criteria of "improving" this article because Wikipedia does not seek to cover the entire scope of the arguments made on controversial issues, and traditional mediums that are provided as external links do not present all of the arguments of the debate in a kind of concise bird’s-eye way. In addition, Debatus, being a wiki, follows the same philosophy as Wikipedia, producing refined debate content, which should be considered in favor of doing this. The Wiretapping debate is on the front page.Loudsirens 06:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why two?
Why does this article and Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II both exist? I would drastically trim this one down and put your efforts into maintaining the other one (which probably should lose it's FA status now) or merge the two to create one amazing article.

P.S. I found this - Expand - mixed in with all the other crap on top, feel free to put it on the article page if it still needs it. Rocket000 11:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Intrusion
This article is clearly biased towards the agenda of the US government and it's NWO plans to soften us up psychologically and ensure dissidence is nipped in the bud. Divide and rule. Where is the section about clear invasion and erosion of our civil liberties in direct conflict with the Constitution? Tri7megi7tu7 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the act, not a blog about what people think. Provide a reliable reference about the act and it is possible that it may be included.  Your opinion is not a reliable reference. -- | k a i n a w &trade; 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the issue, "reliable references" are exactly that which is being repressed by the very act in discussion. Dare to speak out against the government, and you get silenced by the very laws supposedly intended to protect your freedom. Tri7megi7tu7 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are speaking out and you haven't been silenced. As for reliable resources, there is criticism in the USA PATRIOT Act article from reliable resources.  Did you completely miss all of it? -- | k a i n a w &trade; 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can lead a horse to water... Tri7megi7tu7 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title I which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Patriot Act, Title II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070623115806/http://www.ii.fsu.edu/~cmcclure/patriotact.pdf to http://www.ii.fsu.edu/~cmcclure/patriotact.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Patriot Act, Title II. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20051227182737/http://www.cdt.org:80/security/usapatriot/overview2005.php to http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/overview2005.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)