Talk:Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

=Criticism=

It's necassary to show that the bill itself actually is pretty specific about what it's talking about. 69.14.85.112 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking serious issue with the objectivity of this article. The tenor of the article is extremely alarmist, and seems to disregard the significantly limited effect that the bill has. I would like for someone to put up the indicator that the objectivity of this article has been questioned. I would do it, but I don't know how. Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the template. I'll go into a little more detail on my grievance.  The article has essentially taken the position that the bill would legislate thoughtcrime, citing only sources that take the alarmist view that this bill would impinge on Constitutional Rights.  Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilmanjaro1: The question of the effect the bill would have is exactly what is under debate. You are not permitted to assume the consequent on controversial issues, that is, establish through mere assertion what the effect of the bill will be because its effects lie in the future, not the present.

The present facts are: the bill was introduced by this Congressional member, passed by this number of yeas and nays on this date, and contains these words. In a participatory democracy, further facts around any bill include the public reactions to the bill from various sources including the media and notable individuals and institutions. Newbies to Wiki have to understand that controversial issues need to be presented in a neutral way, just stating the facts. The bill has come under heavy criticism for whatever reason. Both criticisms and rebuttals are presented. Biasing the articles is not tolerated. swvswv (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv

I have organized the criticisms section by source-type political, media and institutional. I have also included a section within the criticism for rebuttal by proponents. Future criticisms and rebuttals can be placed in their respective sections for ease of reference. swvswv (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv

I am not clear how this page in its current form is neutral. It seems to me that an article dedicated to a bill should have the primary function of explaining the purpose of the proposed law, with criticisms (both positive and negative) carrying a secondary role. This article seems to (less than at the time of my first comment, but still) focus on the predicted negative implications of the bill and focus very little on explaining its purpose or intent.Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the sentence "Proponents assert Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill. Critics claim Section 899F makes the bill self-contradictory.[4]" This seems redundant and biased. The statement "Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill." would simply state what the bill says, free of bias. That Section may make the bill self-contradictory, but that is irrelevant to an explanation of the content of the bill, and the criticisms are already established. Additionally, the cite is to the bill itself. If the quote is to remain as it is, the cite should be to a source claiming that the bill is self-contradictory. The bill does not make this claim. Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilmanjaro1: You are again assuming the consequent. People dispute what the effect of the bill would be, which is a large part of the reason it has a wiki page at all. The nature of the dispute, as is well documented here, centers around the claims that the bill would exactly violate the Civil Rights and Liberties of the People. That controversy is a fundamental fact of this bill and therefore a fundamental fact of this wiki entry.

If we followed your prescription, then all presentation would be limited to what proponents of measures claim for them, in just the words they themselves chose. This amounts to providing a platform for politicking. The specific interest in this bill is larger than the bill's wording. Please read the continued comments below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvswv (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For Kilmanjaoro1: As an example of normalized entries of this type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.R._4437. Both these bills sparked a reaction from the public. That reaction is itself a part of the Wikipedia entry and not a sideline to or subtopic of the bill. Thomas.loc.gov mechanistically reports bills and their contents free from their larger context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvswv (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilmanjaro1: For further clarification, here is the Encyclopedia Brittanica's online entry for George Bush: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9126475/George-W-Bush. As you can see, the controversy surrounding his election is given in the first paragraph. Everyone benefits in the long run if Wikipedia is kept unbiased. swvswv (talk)swvswv

My criticism to which you just responded has nothing to do with the consequences of the bill. Expecting an article to explain the purpose and contents of a bill is not assuming its consequences, nor is it adopting a political stance. Purpose/content and consequences have quite distinct meanings. I am not a "proponent" of the bill as you seem to believe. Users access Wikipedia articles and often form their opinions based on the information provided. A user accessing the HR 1955 article would learn very little about the bill beyond the fact that critics believe it legislates a basis for prosecuting thought crime. The HR 4437 article you linked is a perfect example of what I would expect the HR 1955 article to look like.

swvswv replies:

I am taking Kilmanjaro1's above paragraph sentence by sentence because this talk section now runs the risk of having the parties talk past each other instead of addressing issues on a point by point basis. Also I believe that Kilmanjaro1's feelings are typical of, and therefore instructive to, newbie editors of controversial topics.

Klmanjaor1 said: My criticism to which you just responded has nothing to do with the consequences of the bill.

swvswv replies: This is a confused statement, since I never said your criticism did have anything to do with the consequences of the bill.

Kilmanjaro says: You said: "You are again assuming the consequent."

swvswv replies2: What I said regarding "assuming the consequence" is not related, at least as far as I can tell, to the above sentence. However, I will address my comment about your assuming the consequent directly.

For the sake of clarity, here is what it means to assume the consequent: to assume the consequent is to attempt to establish, through merely asserting that it is so, the conclusion which you are supposedly trying to demonstrate.

The conclusion here is the question of what effect the bill would have with respect to civil liberties. That is the source of the controversy. By your own words, you believe the controversy is overblown, and since it is overblown, it does not deserve to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Here are your exact words on this:

"The tenor of the article is extremely alarmist, and seems to disregard the significantly limited effect that the bill has."

But what effect the bill will have is exactly what is in debate. In the above sentence, you are assuming the consequent. People disagree with you.

Here is the essential fact you are letting slip by- bills stated purposes, as defined in their titles and preambles, are not always truthful or accurate. All adults (who follow the political process) know this. You seem to want to overlook this very basic fact and simply force the description of the bill that its proponents generate as "the" definition- as though all such self-descriptions were accurate and truthful. You want to take them at their word and you want to do so in presence of significant controversy.

We all remember Baghdad Bob, who stood there in front of TV cameras saying that there were no American troops in Baghdad while, in the background, American troops could clearly be seen carrying on. The point is, let's not deny a thing, in this case the controversy, exists.

By your own words, you believe the effect of the bill will be limited. Other people disagree, Dennis Kucinch and the ACLU amongst them (not just a lunatic fringe). Perhaps unintentionally, you give the impression that your opinion should be given priority, that is, the purpose of the bill should be accepted at face value from its originators, (or translated into some equivalent "layman's" form), and the controversy, which is overblown according to you, should therefore not be given first-order status. That is assuming the consequent.

Kilmanjaro1 said: Expecting an article to explain the purpose and contents of a bill is not assuming its consequences, nor is it adopting a political stance.

swvswv replies: The entry does explain the stated purpose and the given contents of the bill, that information is not absent and in fact is front and center. However, merely parroting the stated intention of the bill in the words and claims of its authors while ignoring the presence of a real controversy surrounding the bill is indeed biasing the entry. That arrangement would always bias articles in favor of the stated intentions of politicians and their pet bills. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are not constrained to present politicians and the bills they author in the glowing terms they wish to represent themselves in; such a representation is not a form of neutrality.

Kilmanjaro1 says: There is a significant distinction between parroting a bill, and explaining it in a manner for the layperson to understand. You seem to believe I am arguing in favor of the former, but you are incorrect. Like I said before: I believe the criticisms do have a place in the bill. You seem to be focusing on the fact that I believe the criticisms shouldn't take the primary role in the article. That's not my point.

swvswv replies

As I have established, in your previous posts you have indicated that you consider concerns about this bill to be alarmist. That is your opinion independent of this Wikipedia article or any other article. If you want to explain the bill so as to rebutt the alarmists, that would be original research and commentary, and a fine contribution. You are free to carry that out on a blog and link your original work in with the others. The reason the controversy is cited in the opening paragraph is because that controversy is a first class fact around this bill and it belongs there. Perhaps we can work on consolidating those references, but they belong in the opening paragraph for exactly the same reasons as the other Wiki/ Britannica's entries cite the controversies in their opening paragraphs. Citing the existence of controversy is not a form of editorializing. Omitting it would be. In fact selective omission (or relegation to a "below the fold" section) of opposing viewpoints is a favorite tactic of repressive regimes everywhere. Not that you are deliberately or consciously trying to do that.

Kilmanjaor1 said: Purpose/content and consequences have quite distinct meanings.

swvswv replies: This just seems to be a truism (who could ever disagree?) and as such it can't constitute an argument for or against anything.

Kilmanjaro1 says: The point of that statement is that you seem to be failing to distinguish a layperson's explanation of the purpose and content of the bill with an explanation of the bill's consequences.

swvswv replies 2 explanations by and for laypeople is exactly what the sections at the bottom are for and you're absolutely encouraged to contribute your insight.

Kilmanjaro1 said: I am not a "proponent" of the bill as you seem to believe.

swvswv replies: I have rescanned my entries in the talk page and I never claimed that you were a proponent. It's important that everyone remain focused on the quality of the Wikipedia entry and not perceptions of other editors.

Kilmanjaro1 says: "If we followed your prescription, then all presentation would be limited to what proponents of measures claim for them" <-- You are not making an implication as to my position in this statement?

swvswv replies 2 Your opinion is no business of mine and little concern to me since most people have opinions here, at least in my experience, and it can't make any difference to how I interact with them or nothing will work.

To answer your question directly no, absolutely not I was not implying anything about you in the section you cite above. I am pointing out that IF we followed your prescription, THEN we would reduce ourselves to giving marquis status to politician's own opinions of their handiwork. That is all that is on the THEN side of that statement.

Appreciate that this also prevents politicians on the opposite side of issues as yourself from effecting the same end.

Kilmanjaro1 said: Users access Wikipedia articles and often form their opinions based on the information provided. A user accessing the HR 1955 article would learn very little about the bill beyond the fact that critics believe it legislates a basis for prosecuting thought crime.

swvswv replies: Your statement is patently false and your perception that is otherwise is problematic. The entirety of the article above the criticisms section is dedicated to the factual details of the bill, including definitions as given by its authors, the stated intention of the bill as given by its authors the role call of yeas and nays as recorded in Congress. One single clause of one single sentence in the opening paragraph refers to the very real controversy which is a fact of significance about this bill. Your statement is patently false.

Kilmanjaro1 says: I said a reader would learn very little. One single clause of one single sentence? If you're speaking of the first paragraph, there are two areas: "Critics have claimed that the bill defines Thoughtcrime, providing a legal basis for the prevention and prosecution of it," and the clause of which I believe you speak:  "critics assert its enactment would pave the way for violations of Civil Rights and Liberties."

I take issue with neither statement, but I believe that the second sentence should read "While Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill, critics assert its enactment would pave the way for violations of Civil Rights and Liberties."

swvswv replies 2: But that is what it does say: While Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill, critics assert its enactment would pave the way for violations of Civil Rights and Liberties

and has said for a while. I am not sure if you didn't misspeak in your above comment.

As far as the two references go, perhaps we can work on consolidating them together. The basic fact that needs to be recorded is that significant parties believe the bill would impinge civil liberties. In that sense, the critics would say (and have said) the bill is, variously, self-contradictory (of logical necessity- a thing that does both A and not A), misguided, deceptive, and dangerous. In the opening paragraph, I am only interested in recording the fact and nature of the controversy and then the opinion holders can opine for themselves in the sections reserved for that.

Kilmanjaro1 said: The HR 4437 article you linked is a perfect example of what I would expect the HR 1955 article to look like.

swvswv replies: The HR4437 specifically presents the controversy around that bill in its opening paragraph. It says:

The bill was the catalyst for the 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate.

In that case, an entire sentence in the opening paragraph is dedicated to documenting the controversy surrounding the bill. In this case, one single clause of a single sentence of the opening paragraph is used to document the controversy, yet you want even that removed.

Kilmanjaro1 says: First, I've already shown that it is not the case of "one single clause of one single sentence." The controversy is amply indicated in the opening paragraph where it states "Critics have claimed that the bill defines Thoughtcrime, providing a legal basis for the prevention and prosecution of it." Second, that clause has changed significantly since I felt it was inappropriate. It was previously its own sentence, stating what critics think of the section, citing only the bill itself.

swvswv said: Similarly in the case of the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on George Bush, the controversy surrounding his election is also given full weight in the opening paragraph. We can assume that Bush would prefer that not be the case, but the controversy is a fact as much as his election. So also with HR4437. So also with this bill.

swvswv replies2 If things are improving from your viewpoint then that is progress. The newer versions are factual without omitting the controversy.

Kilmanjaro1 says: I have no opinion on the Bush entry, and I don't believe it is relevant here. And again, I said "The HR 4437 article you linked is a perfect example of what I would expect the HR 1955 article to look like." You can argue the similarities between the two, and reasonable people may differ. I do believe the article has been made more neutral with some of the formatting and edits. When I first came upon the article, it was in a very different state.

swvswv replies2 The Bush entry is relevant because it is an example of the incorporation of the controversy surrounding an issue where 1) some politicians and advocates would like not to see it and 2) not every such entry (US presidents) is associated with a controversy in its opening paragraph. The reason I included it was to relieve the perception that HR 1955 had been singled out for special treatment. At any rate, if it had been, it's not going to be.

swvswv said: What you're proposing would have just that effect for bills, which are always worded by their authors/advocates to bias public opinion in favor of them. The control, either direct or indirect, of encyclopedia entries Wikipedia entries by politicians is never ever ever going to happen here.

Kilmanjaro1 says: I have already stated that my interest is not in (as you would say) parroting the language of the bill. Again: I think the article would benefit from a layperson's explanation of its provisions and the purpose of the bill. This would not serve to bias public opinion, it would be to make the bill readable to the average person.

swvswv replies 2 Well, any explanation is going to have a POV whether you call that a bias or intend it as such is another matter. Since you're interested in the bill and since you believe it's being unfairly maligned, then why not blog and link that in? The point is, that interpretation of the bill is just that, an interpretation. Maybe yours is better, clearer, more grounded and more defensible. Maybe God Almighty would say kilmanjaor1 is correct. But the way that's dealt with in Wiki is as a POV, or else we're just going to have religious wars over who's interpretation is the right one and they'll be no end to it.

swvswv said: The entry is solid, factual, unbiased and in conformance with demonstrated norms. If the preponderance of commentary is critical and you are unhappy with that state of affairs, then the solution is to find quotes and arguments from notables who support the bill. An entire section has been devoted to just that. The cure for speech you are unhappy with is not censorship or silencing the voices of those with whom you disagree. The cure is more speech and you're encouraged to find and share that speech with Wikipedia users. 70.12.92.236 (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv 70.12.92.236 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv

Kilmanjaro1 says: Thank you. I wasn't calling for censorship or "silencing voices," and I do not believe anything I have written indicates otherwise.Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kilmanjaro1 replies2: When I first came upon this article, it was in dramatically different form and did little to offer a balanced approach to the issue. It has improved.

I never claimed that critical reactions to HR 1955 were alarmist. "As you established," I stated "The tenor of the article is extremely alarmist." That had nothing to do with the bill or reaction to it. That had to do with the article.

I never argued that points of view critical of the bill should be removed. As you have commented, I am new here, and may have unintentionally suggested with my word choice that the criticisms be given a status of less importance.

You said the quote in the opening paragraph states "While Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill, critics assert its enactment would pave the way for violations of Civil Rights and Liberties."

It does not say this when I access the article. It says "While proponents point out that Section 899F of HR 1955 specifically prohibits the violation of Civil Rights and Liberties in the enforcement of the bill, critics assert its enactment would pave the way for violations of Civil Rights and Liberties."

Do you not see the difference? This should not be an issue of proponent vs. opponent. This is an issue of the bill language vs. the result its opponents anticipate. I cleared my cache before accessing the page and cutting and pasting that sentence, so it should be the up to date version. I believe "While Section 899F of HR 1955..." would be more appropriate. Kilmanjaro1 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

swvswv replies 3: The intro paragraph reads more naturally, cites the affirmative prescriptions for actions specified in the bill, removed the reference to "thought crime" and flowed the mentions of the bills defined terms together so as to highlight the relationship between the terms and their critics. 68.58.153.105 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv

I am going to a quote from include the only current article I can find on anyone - in this case Harman -- denying negative implicatinos and defending the act and then take down the neutrality notice. Frankly, I think you'll find it difficult to find anyone else defending it but if you do, put up their defense. Carol Moore 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Senate Bill 1959
This bill (which is practically the same, as far as I know) is up for vote soon. Why isn't it mentioned in the article? 68.197.174.169 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's up to volunteers to do put the info in. I haven't heard anything yet. What do you know and what is your source? Thanks. Carol Moore 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * I don't have good sources saying when it is up for vote, but I *did* find the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110poOYk5 and http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1959is.txt.pdf 68.197.174.169 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am consolidating and repositioning the quotes from the 2008 Presidential candidates and will include any other candidate's quotes on this issue as they appear. Ward Churchill and Devvy Kidd are media figures. Their opinions are represented but the candidates' quotes are more relevant since any of them could have a definitive say on this issue. swvswv (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)swvswv


 * I personally think these are unnecessary divisions that detract from the article. It also makes it easier for others to claim the article is NOT neutral - as they did just this week. Some of the new quotes redundant or from minor sources. Dozens more of those could be added. Let's not turn this into a QUOTE FARM. But I will wait and see if anyone else comments or cleans up what to me looks very messy.
 * Carol Moore 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

They are not meant as divisions, they are classifications which make it easier to find a specific type information. That is the basis for all information architecture.

Quote farms can degrade readability. However, the concept of "quote farm" has a high bar to hurdle within the context of public criticism and discussion of proposed legislation. The public reaction to a bill is at least as important as the presentation of bill by its proponents. Bills' descriptions are written by their proponents in such a way as to bias public perception of their consequences. To simply quote the intention of the bill as presented by it's authors is not being neutral.

Not all bills have a wikipage- this one does just BECAUSE it is controversial to the people to be affected. The controversy and the opinions are relevant facts and need to be documented.

The article is not taking a position- it is representing the positions taken and identifying their sources in a single section at the bottom of the page. Quotes can be perhaps be consolidated. I have shortened the quotes and consolidated some, but left the links in.

Advocates who are willing to go on record must be quoted and cited. I have not seen any other politicians comment, nor any in the mainstream media. The bill's critics are confined to the section clearly labeled criticism as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvswv (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More Criticism: Pork?
I've heard that the bill has a lot of pork, attached. Has anyone looked into this, or is it unsubstantiated rumor? If true, then it should be in the criticism section. Brian Pearson (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For Mmmmtmmmm Please join the discussion page before making major edits to this page. The word "perceived" in the criticism section is a necessary and non-trivial qualifier to the sentence and should not be removed since  it keeps this wikipage's POV neutral.

Labeling the wording of the bill as vague and overly broad without the qualifier "perceived" appears to readers as a form of seeking to establish a fact, in this case, that the wording IS overly broad and vague. Wikipedia's responsibility is to cite the following fact : critics have charged that it is overly broad and vague. There are many ways to say that, but what is not permitted is to take sides. I am not accusing anyone of taking sides or deliberately twisting wordage. I am just enforcing the NPOV that is Wikipedia's policy.

The details of the logic to the objections to 889A are now more explicit and related to the larger context of American history. On the rebuttal side, I have also recently included Rep. Harmon's reply, in the form of a PDF.

We all have a POV on issues... let's participate by expressing those in blogs and columns while keeping the quality of Wikipedia scholarly, serious, credible and with a neutral POV in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. swvswv

Editors are encouraged to join the discussion of this page before making major edits.

I removed the internal links scattered throughout the page to mere dates (i.e. links that took you to a page about the month of June or the year 2007) because they are not germane to this article and increase the link noise level. So also with the link to the United States which has been replaced with a link to the United States Congress.

I corrected the grammar from "has" to "have" as noted in the edit description because it's the (collective group of) nouns ("violent radicalization, "homegrown terrorism" etc.) which have provoked controversy, not the "inclusion" (i.e. the singular act of inclusion) and that group needs the plural form of the verb.

I have identified the bill's sponsor in the opening paragraph and included mention of the passage of the bill there also. The history of the bill as a bill before the house technically stops there, but of course it goes to the Senate as s-1959 and that is mentioned also.

Since the page is so active, I am now watching this page.

swvswv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvswv (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed two sections only because they were not focused or cited facts without relating how they were controversial.

One mentioned the bill's provision to allow secret investigations. AFAIK this is already allowed under a large number of circumstances for a variety of reasons and has been for a very long time. It's therefore difficult to understand why this should be counted as controversial.

The other section was misplaced- it should have been under the "institutional reaction" heading, and moreover was rambling, changing subjects in the middle of the paragraph.

People feel strongly about this bill, so contributors are urged to double check the grammar, relevance and editorial cohesion of their contributions before pushing the save button. We're here to report the facts, not voice opinions or argue sides. Presenting advocacy one way or he other is appropriate when those advocates are people of some note or groups of some distinction- i.e. the John Birch Society or the ACLU. Newspaper editorials of newspapers serving a community are also appropriate places where advocacy might legitimately appear.

If we allow people to degrade the level of presentation and bias the articles with argumentation, however well intentioned, it will have the effect driving away readers. People come to Wikipedia for facts. People go to your blog for your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.4.177 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Charges?
Has there been any mention yet as to when President Bush will be brought up on charges under the bill of being a 'homegrown' terrorist? Does the Bill concern itself with his terrorist acts abroad, such as illegal warfare and supporting covert torture? Or does it only apply to his actions on US soil and US-run military bases, such as Guantanamo Bay? Do we know yet how he is being investigated to prohibit him from engaging in future acts of terrorism, both within US borders and abroad? samwaltz (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

=Recent Edits Clearly Non-Neutral= The recent paragraphs added to this article (February 17) are clearly not neutral in tone, spring from a particular political POV, and editorialize all over the place; viz.: "A partial thaw in the mainstream press Blackout of S. 1959 occurred Monday, February 4, 2008... / In a rare breath of fresh air, The San Francisco Chronicle has now published an article ... / Unfortunately, Americans are acting the same as the Jews, disabled, and dissidents did during Hitler’s Third Reich... / Ref: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL&hw=endgame&sn=002&sc=583 (Accessed Feb. 17, 2008).

I have undone these additions, despite the one or two facts presented that MAY be relevant; the person who added this text has not clearly established even what the SF Chronicle's criticism of the bill IS. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

=HR 1955= Several of the sources call the subject of this article HR 1955, and that page redirects here. However the article doesn't explain (a) what this name means (why 1955?) or (b) when this name was used. In its current form the article is titled Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, and the introduction mentions that it was introduced as S-1959; "HR 1955" just seems to slip in without explanation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HR 1955 is the 1955th bill before congress in that session of congress. the redirection makes no sense and having a page named 'hr 1955' makes no sense.. because every session of congress pretty much has a 1955th bill. so do the state legislatures. in any given year there might be several dozen HR 1955s, all completely different. i have redirected every HR1955 linking page to Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 Decora (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a Bill or an Act?
Could someone clarify this? In UK a bill becomes an Act when it becomes law, perhaps different in USA.

John Cross (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)