Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B/archive1

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B
Self-nomination: I have finally gotten through subtitle B of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act. I am submitting this to FAC as I think that it is well written and comprehensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Very interesting. michael talk 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it doesn't do what an encyclopaedia article should do. It doesn't explain the thinking behind the sections under discussion, doesn't mention who was responsible for drafting them, where the impetus came from, why each section was considered necessary, what criticisms there have been, and so on.  All it does is very dryly give the author's interpretation of what each section of the act means, and as such it's well short of being comprehensive.  Worldtraveller 14:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well. You've already tried to get such articles deleted, so I was waiting for your opposition. You really do contradict yourself though: you are basically asking for analysis, which is the very thing you are opposed to. I doubt I'll be able to satisfy you. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Original Research is not allowed. michael talk 14:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for analysis - I'm asking for an encyclopaedic article. Have a look at two FAs relating to laws - Parliament Act and French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools - and you can see they discuss the relevant law, its background and consequences, rather than simply offer an interpretation of the law in plain English.  None of this sort of discussion is present in this article so it clearly is not comprehensive.  Worldtraveller 15:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, they discuss the law? Under your narrow interpretation of original research, that's a strict no-no. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not even trying to understand my opposition. Just look at the TOC here - does it look like the article makes any attempt to do anything other than describe the law piece by piece?  It's as if our article on Hamlet just had sections entitled 'Act 1, scene 1', 'Act 2, scene 2', 'Act 3, scene 3', and so on, which described the play, without any decription of where Shakespeare got his ideas from, contemporary reactions to it, influences on other works, and so on.  As for the token criticism section, it really isn't adequate.  What about public opinion and newspapers?  What about such things as Michael Moore and the congressman who told him he hadn't read the bill before voting on it?  Why is all this omitted?  Worldtraveller 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Public opinion and newspaper polls were not done specifically on Title III, and certainly were not done on Subtitle B alone (feel free to prove me wrong). Therefore it follows that opinion polls should be discussed in the main article USA PATRIOT Act. As for Michael Moore and the senator who didn't read the Act: yes, I saw Farenheit 911 also, and you know what? I was outraged at the time, but now I sort of wonder if Michael Moore didn't read the Act himself... anyway, I digress somewhat. My point being is that this sort of commentary is best left in the main USA PATRIOT Act article. This article is about Subtitle B, and I'm darned if I'm going expand its scope to material that is better off in another article. As for your comparison of the Patriot Act article I've written to an article I'd write about Shakespeare's Othello (f'rinstance): well, I might well do things differently. But then again, they are two entirely different articles, about two entirely different subjects. I don't find the comparison valid. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so it seems that what you're saying is that there's really nothing to be said about title III subtitle B - that it's not a significant thing in its own right, but only within the context of the whole act. So, why split it from the main article?  Worldtraveller 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I never said it wasn't significant. Worldtraveller, I know you've been on Wikipedia for a long time now, so I know you are fully aware that when an article becomes quite large that it is normal practice for the article to be split. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - but normally what's split off is expected to be an encyclopaedic article in its own right. What you're saying here is that all the discussion and comment that one would expect to be reported here only applies to the act as a whole, not to this one bit.  So, why was this split off?  If all the comment and reaction only refers to the act as a whole, isn't it better for an encyclopaedia to have an article on the act as a whole, rather than having articles on several arbitrary bits of it that don't tell the reader anything about the act as a whole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldtraveller (talk • contribs).
 * I don't get what you're saying. TBSDY is saying that most of the criticism of the PATRIOT Act applied to the Act as a whole, and not to this piece, and as such it does not fall within the scope of this article. This is an article about Subtitle B of Title III, not criticism and comment of Subtitle B. What you're asking for is a total red herring. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that this article covers all associated reports and studies that were ordered in Subtitle B. I really can't include this much detailed info in the main article, USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, because it would make it far too long. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how what Worldtraveller is asking for is original research, provided sources are citable (which they probably are). I can't believe this section of the law was totally uncontroversial when it passed - surely it would have been debated, even a little? Is there any criticism we should know about? The impetus for the law would also be good to mention, as the article seems to assume some familiarity with the PATRIOT Act itself. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought I had actually provided the impetus for the subtitle: "The second subtitle, entitled Subtitle B: Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements, largely modifies the Bank Secrecy Act to make it harder for money launderers to operate, and to make it easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations." As for it being uncontroversial when passed: the Patriot Act was passed with very little debate I'm afraid. But I'll do some more digging and see what I can find. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the facts about this part of the Act: Basically this bill passed in the House of Representatives: 412-1. There was only one senator who dissented from passing the Act,a and that was Texas senator Ronald Paul, who stated the following (which I'll see if I need to update in the article):
 * "The so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.
 * "Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to `fight the war on drugs' or `crackdown on white-collar crime.' Even a ban on Internet gambling has somehow made it into this `anti-terrorism' bill!
 * "Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill are: expanding the war on cash by creating a new federal crime of taking over $10,000 cash into or out of the United States; codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the `suspicious activity reports' mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an `unusual' pattern in their financial dealings.
 * "HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by allowing Customs officials to open incoming or outgoing mail without a search warrant. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.
 * "The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) is a package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens. (source, thomas.loc.gov)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, this is now updated. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm a bit concerned about the section appearing out of place, though. Still, it's better than nothing. Johnleemk | Talk 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you think it's out of place though, I should get it moved. What's your thoughts on that matter? I thought that this would be appropriate in it's own section, after all, Ron Paul is the only one to object in Congress. That's fairly notable in its own right, I'd have thought. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it just feels odd, considering it doesn't fit in with the other sections of the article. Perhaps if it was meatier it might look less out of place. Johnleemk | Talk 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm contemplating the irony of dissent in America looking out of place, because there was precious little when the Patriot Act was originally passed. Anyway, I'm not rightly sure that there is a more appropriate spot to put that info. I do see what you mean though, but there is no elegant solution to this one I'm afraid. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The only issue I have with this article is that now that I am part of several translation WikiProjects, the prospect exists that I may have to translate this into German someday. That might be enough to make me contemplate WikiSuicide. Other than that though, excellent work. RyanG e rbil10 16:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Oppose This article DOES NOT comply with condition (e), that being that it has not shown its stability. This article is only 1 day old! It needs more time to be worked over, and in places, simplified. If this article were to appear on the home page, image going through so much information: sometimes, it is just too much. That being said, some excellent work went into it: it just needs some fine-tuning and simplification. -- Chris Lester   talk  18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not entirely true. Yes, it is one day old. However, please review the first edit in the history: I split it from USA PATRIOT Act, Title III. That material has been in there for quite a while: have a dig around the history if you want to confirm. If you can tell me the areas that need to be simplified, however, I'll try my best to sort this out. As for it having too much information... sorry, but I really don't see how I can do much about that! In order to understand the Subtitle you need to provide information about all the aspects of the subtitle. Out of interest, what information did you want me to remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is limited scope with regards to what you can cut out, however to put this as a front-page article will simply not work, as the average citizen may simply not be interested. The information is too specific for such an award. Most people will be interested in a parent article of, say USA PATRIOT Act - this is far more relevant. --  Chris Lester   talk  12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because an article is an FA doesn't mean it will appear on the front page. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As John says, I don't really believe it should be main page material. However, all articles that are not deletion candidates should have the ability to become FAs. Also, it is quite normal for an article to be split into daughter articles if the parent article becomes too large. Obviously a split article will have more of a reduced or focused scope than the parent articles, which is meant to be more comprehensive and cover more aspects of the topic being covered. Incidently, apologies if I seem combatitive (I am a little when I'm on FAC), it is nothing personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Several FAs I've helped write passed on their first nomination, which came on the day of their creation. Not once has anyone suggested that they were ineligible for stability issues. You may be right on account of it needing work, but that's a different issue in itself. A one-day old but brilliant article can certainly be made an FA. Johnleemk | Talk 20:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The concern of 1-day runs deeper than purely time. Remember that other editors have not gone over the article in great depth: thus extensive changes may be neccesary. -- Chris Lester   talk  12:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea is that FAC provides them a chance to do just that. If extensive changes may be necessary, it's not a stability issue, because it indicates that the article has major structural problems. Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed my stance to NEUTRAL. -- Chris Lester   talk  15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object when I read this article I feel like I was on findlaw.com. I totally agree with Worldtraveller comments above. This page is just not up to FA quality. Remember what the F in FA is for. JohnM4402 04:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am well aware what the "F" in "FA" means. I have been a sole or major contributor to at least 11 of them. Now, could you please be more specific? Funnily enough, many articles on findlaw.com are of high quality, and had they been on Wikipedia I would have submitted them to FA. Please state exactly where the problem is, as this does not give me enough to fix any issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Great article, but I miss legal opinions about this section of the act. Have there been no articles published in legal publications? The only sources I see are government sources. Garion96 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This reads more like a Wikibooks commentary/explanation on the act itself, not an encyclopedia article. There's little reference to cases involving the act (are there any?), there's little on the process or thinking that went into writing this section of the act...it seems that there's little more than a lay explanation of the act itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per A Man in Black. Needs more on the history, e.g. one might be interested in questions like "On what date was this act passed?" More importantly, the article gives the impression that effectively no qualified sources have commented on any aspect of this piece of legislation. As far as I can tell, every one of the sources is a product of the United States government or government officials -- the breadth of sourcing needs to expand or it should be explained that there are no alternate POVs on this issue. I understand the Patriot Act to be fairly controversial; perhaps someone, somewhere, has commented on these provisions? As it stands this article severely fails the comprehensiveness requirement. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * History is better in the main USA PATRIOT Act, Title III article, IMO.
 * The date that it was passed would also be better on either USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, or even USA PATRIOT Act.
 * Needs more sources that commented on it. OK, fair call. Will look into this further. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article need not contain a complete history but should include basic details like dates and margins of passage, authors and key supporters, etc. along with any information of particular importance to this title of the bill. All this information amounts to a paragraph and is very useful background for anyone linked to this article who is unfamiliar with the PATRIOT act. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs more references other than the text of the act itself. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 10:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I already see one problem. From Template talk:Did you know, which you never bothered to go back to address the concerns of DYK and mine:
 * Isn't this the part of the act that also makes it harder for coin dealers and people who deal in bullion because they need to keep meticulous records concerning certain transactions, namely the aforementioned bullion sales, and also transactions like junk silver? Or is it another part of the act?
 * Also, to recopy the concerns in DYK:
 * * his is way too political (and IMHO, inaccurate, and slanted to be pro PATRIOT ACT) for me to ever pick it, although I can't speak for others. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * * Technically its also not a new article, it was just cut out of a longer related article.--Peta 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you can't even bother to address that minor problem with DYK, what makes me think that this article is even FA worthy??--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been very busy, and I didn't notice the comment on DYK. I added it because I thought it might be something we could use, you seem to be taking it as a personal affront that I missed your comment. Technically it actually is an article in it's own right, so I dispute this assertion. Can you point out the inaccuracies, and where I am being political? I'd also like to point out that it is not too pro-PATRIOT Act, though if you can give me parts that are pro (or even anti) Title III, Section B then I'd be very interested in rephrasing or improving whatever you pick out. Incidently, nothing in Subtitle B deals with moving currency. That's the first section of Subtitle C. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * * his is way too political (and IMHO, inaccurate, and slanted to be pro PATRIOT ACT) for me to ever pick it, although I can't speak for others. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * * Technically its also not a new article, it was just cut out of a longer related article.--Peta 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean, if you can't even bother to address that minor problem with DYK, what makes me think that this article is even FA worthy??--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been very busy, and I didn't notice the comment on DYK. I added it because I thought it might be something we could use, you seem to be taking it as a personal affront that I missed your comment. Technically it actually is an article in it's own right, so I dispute this assertion. Can you point out the inaccuracies, and where I am being political? I'd also like to point out that it is not too pro-PATRIOT Act, though if you can give me parts that are pro (or even anti) Title III, Section B then I'd be very interested in rephrasing or improving whatever you pick out. Incidently, nothing in Subtitle B deals with moving currency. That's the first section of Subtitle C. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)