Talk:USA Freedom Act

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katelynm127, Brookearruda, Cameronskarritt, Mbf1005, AJennings49, Gabriel Ferrante.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Advice for improving USA Freedom Act?
I saw you had concerns of RECENTISM over at DYK. I'm not a regular at DYK, so let me set that aside and just ask your advice generally-- how can the USA Freedom Act article be improved? Obviously, by the article's very nature, it covers events that have occurred within the past year-- I can't change that.

But I would really welcome suggestions you have for improving the article. It's one of the two major congressional reform proposals, and the one with bipartisan support and the most co-sponsors. It's not "just another bill", it's a much-discussed bill.

I want the article to be the best article it can be, but based on your criticism, I'm not sure on precisely how you think the article should be improved. So I thought I'd go right to the source for more advice.

Look forward to working with you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually neither interested or competent in editing articles on American laws. I was commenting by applying what I feel to be standards applicable to all encyclopaedic articles. In general, I would expect articles on laws to be rather sober affairs. Obviously controversial a topic and background, most of the article consists of sound bites from partisans of the bill, which is why all the comments are rhetorical in nature. I dislike seeing too many quotes and too much rhetoric (and "responses") in any article, and this one is no exception. Whilst it isn't necessary to avoid all rhetoric, we can and should use it sparingly. Quotes indicating personal or otherwise belligerent tos and fros, such as "Unless Section 215 gets fixed, you, Mr. Cole, and the intelligence community will get absolutely nothing" should be removed. I don't really see how the huge block quote from Leahy is justified, viz: WP:UNDUE. Naturally, there is always going to be interest in pieces of legislation in the making, but the article centres heavily on the actions within the houses, with insufficient context and relevance to the outside world, including practical details and explanations as to its intended consequences. But in terms of its content and structure, this more resembles a US politics article than a US Law article. This all contributes to its "newsy" character. I'm unclear if this is a "large body of proposed legislation", but the article seems to characterise it as an amendment of sorts of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Also, the "stated purpose" quote is promotional, and comes from a primary source, and I feel it would be better written in more layman's terms such as in the Guardian article cited. To cement this subject's notability, I would like to see instead a greater amount of notable commentary and debate that has circulated in the intellectual media. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bipartisan support does not necessarily translate into votes to pass the legislation. It seems, from this at least, that the executive branch may well try to kill or sabotage it. I'm bemused as to why "search efficiency" would enter into the any rationale of the Justice Department. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Link for non-US readers
Is there a wikilink available to explain the meaning of "title" (as in "The bill is made up of several titles")? This is opaque to non-US readers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I found this (chapter 6 "At the beginning of each bill is a paragraph called the title...It...states in concise general terms the subject of the bill". This may need to be added to the proper WP page and then wikilinked from here. It doesn't appear to be on WP yet, from my quick search.   petrarchan47  t  c   06:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Updates May 2014

 * NSA reform bill to take concerning route
 * What the Proposed NSA Reforms Wouldn’t Do
 * House to Advance Bill to End Mass NSA Surveillance


 * Thomas Drake withdraws support and links to:
 * New “Freedom” Equals Less Protection for All But the Telecoms - Marcy Wheeler


 * Manager’s Amendment Puts Back Door Searches Back In USA Freedom Act
 * Chairman of key House committee agrees to proceed with NSA reform bill
 * USA Freedom Act Moves Forward, but Don't Get Excited About This NSA Reform   petrarchan47  t  c   01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of these would be good to include too. The two biggest headlines are the Freedom Act would extend provisions of the Patriot Act and, depending on interpretation, may not end all forms of bulk collection. In other words, it now seems closer to the sibling bills.--2001:18E8:3:104E:2C71:73F9:B85B:1B05 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

title
I'm curious: why isn't the title like this: "USA FREEDOM Act" or like this: "U.S.A. F.R.E.E.D.O.M Act"? Right now in the title there is a inconsistency. While the "USA" part seems to refer to the United States the "Freedom" part seems to refer to freedom and not the acronym. --  Mr.Pseudo Don't talk to me  22:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. Most media refers to it as "USA Freedom Act", while Sen. Sensenbrenner is the rare source who gets it right. I'm not sure what WP should do at this point, since it is meant to reflect the majority of sources, but in this case that seems a mistake.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Serious problems with lead section
I'm not eager to wade too deeply into this article. I'll just point out that the lead is seriously deficient in that it doesn't include the terms "telephone," "metadata," (or the equivalent "calling records" or the like) or "National Security Agency." Slightly less serious is that it doesn't include the words "lone wolf" or "roving wiretap." Without these terms the lead is not doing its most important job, which is to summarize what the act actually does. These terms should be included in the first paragraph, if not in the first sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 's edit is a big step forward, but the lead still doesn't specifically mention the NSA, telephone metadata, the lone wolf provision, or roving wiretaps. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added those. Better?--agr (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! I'm removing the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It says the act was signed by Trump in 1999 in the legislative history2601:14D:4800:4080:104B:93F9:D309:EC8B (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reorganizing right now
I moved the Background section to top (below the lead though). Now I think about removing the Politico piece; it looks irrelevant. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Neutral and Outdated
This article does not meet the standards for a neutral point of view. There are multiple references to seemingly excessive surveillance and a very long section on the arguments of civil liberties advocates -- but not a word about the government's rationale for the legislation and the counterterrorism purposes of the statute. The article is biased.

Moreover, it is seriously out of date - there are no references to the fact that the the amendment made to the USA PATRIOT Act by the USA FREEDOM Act expires on December 15 2019 and the statute is currently the subject of Congressional reauthorization consideration. PaulSora (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)