User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Analysis of Wikipedia's PATRIOT Act article

"The Patriot Act does not provide for indefinite imprisonment of anyone; the detentions of Hamdi and Padilla had nothing to do with the Patriot Act; the Patriot Act has nothing to do with detention without counsel."

Indirectly, the USA PATRIOT Act makes it easier for these things to happen. New powers that are enabled through the USA PATRIOT Act are relevant to the article. The definition should be reworded to include which authoritative sources reach these conclusions. If we claim to be the sum of all human knowledge, relevant information should be cited rather than deleted. I'm sure you agree that many people believe that the detentions of Hamdi and Padilla are better enabled through the powers of the USA PATRIOT Act. Even if you disagree with them, citation of their conclusion is relevant to the article. --Aficionado 17:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, which parts of the Act make it easier for these things to happen? And the Act, as far as I can see, doesn't deal with indefinite detention; I am only up to Title III however, so could be wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you and I will disagree over what the text of the act means, but that doesn't matter anyway because Wikipedia doesn't allow for your or my interpretations. The only things that matter are: the specific and verifiable ways that the act is being cited to circumvent the Bill of Rights, and how authoritative sources interpret use of the act in the future. Controversial assertions should be cited as the opinion of the author and, whenever possible, cited contrasting assertions should be added. Since we can't expect everyone to read the entire Patriot Act and draw their own conclusions, we only have contrasting opinions about its meaning as content for the article. If we cite the strongest source for both sides of the argument, people can decide for themselves who to trust. --Aficionado 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is my question. What parts of the Act are said to circumvent the Bill of Rights? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, a list of all the sources of people who say that the PATRIOT ACT circumvents the Bill of Rights could fill an encyclopedia by itself. Anyone can do a google search for the two terms and find ample citations, perhaps the most authoritative of which are by Senator Russ Feingold. My point is that the only issue here is one of verifiability. A strong article presents the assertions of notable people, it doesn't try to distinguish which assertions are correct and which are not. --Aficionado 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Google search" vs. "presents the assertions of notable people" may be mutually exclusive... but once I get to that point I will note their criticisms. Who would you say is a notable person though? Russ Feingold for sure, but who else? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]