Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)/Archive 6

message: This is Sanger's seminal "how-to-do" NPOV:
http://nupedia.8media.org/policy.shtml#nonbias
"On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?"
Seems like an objective way of looking at how one's edits ought to read. Metarhyme 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Does anybody think this page should be moved to National Security Agency warrantless surveillance controversy? --MZMcBride 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. A prior move attempt eventually yielded Terrorist surveillance program. A prior Legality of warrantless surveillance fork was AfD'd. Your proposal is more difficult to type than NSA. I do not think this page should be moved. Metarhyme 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: An effort to describe the program itself, as opposed to the controversy about the program has been made here: Terrorist surveillance program.  I am of the opinion that there are too many "known unknowns" and not enough "known knowns" about the program for there to be an encyclopedia article written about it.  I also feel that the title of the article is not NPOV.  However, I invite everyone who has worked on this page to look at that article and comment/revise, etc.  Kgwo1972 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to avoid hearing and responding to Thweatt. Check the archive. Metarhyme 04:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I'm confused by the hostility there.  I'm not sure if I should be thankful or offended.--WilliamThweatt 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mixed emotions are confusing. Here's yesterday's Times NSA program controversy graphic. It was peaceful when it was quiescent, but Demoncrats and their ilk keep returning to it like attorneys to the Plame. Metarhyme 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Controversy v. The Program 

message: Isn't this article a little big long? Not even articles like American Civil War or American Revolution are so long. I think this article exceeds the optimum in length. - TopAce 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks to User:Harmil, the NSA call database was created yesterday, so that's not being piled into this one. A way for wingnuts and bushbots to agree that the article does not require an NPOV disputed tag is for gobs of both points of view to be present in this article, which has impacted coherence as well as greatly lengthened it. The analysis of the legality above in Talk could be spun off if a judge rewrote it with regard to all opinions. That would shorten it. Would you like to do that? Metarhyme 13:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stubbed out history and challenges. Metarhyme 06:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: User:Penf0ld created a gorgeous new section which I removed to Penf0ld's user page. It was unsourced and I'm fairly certain that it's Original Research - Penf0ld's. If this is not so, it can be put back in article space. I'm hoping that a source can be provided - take a look at it it's beautiful. Metarhyme 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical section

message: For those that still believe security trumps all, see the following articles that clearly show how little is known and how dangerous this program is. Those violating the law do not get investigated, but when journalists report on these crimes they are.
:A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources. 
Is this what they mean with "shooting the messenger?" It is official, every non-terrorist is subject of this program, especially opposing politicians, journalists, activists, et cetera. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FBI has been ordered to find someone - a government employee or several - who leaked information to the press. As investigating detectives, they have examined call records of some relevant government agencies. They state that they adhere to legal requirements when asking phone companies for anything more than the government's own records. If you can't accept the FBI's statement, look at the number of leakers caught so far in this case - none - an unlikely total if the NSA is fully involved.  Metarhyme 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point is, the administration is more interested in targeting critics (those who expose violations of the law, reporters, leakers) than in apprehending terrorists. That is the problem with this major logging of calls. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it's handy to classify them with the terrorists as enemies of the party government properly subject to antiterrorist measures. That's the context - you are correct. However, I would prefer that the article stick to the controversy over the NSA doing surveillance inside the USA without having to ask a judge for a warrant. Getting the article away from that is sinful. A smidgen of sin is unexceptional - an unsightly abundance of sin is bad. Metarhyme 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Big Brother]]

message: Reading the article for the first time in a while, I am struck by "article sprawl". Big time. Having seen how the 2004 election controversy article went (which I wrote initially), this is doing similar. It's a good article, but if a couple of the main editors on it would read carefully, it could be greatly improved.
One of my main concerns is that almost every section up to FISA, is basically a diary, section by section. So you get Dec 2005 - May 2006 in this area, then Dec 2005 - May 2006 in that area. Eventually ones eyes glaze over. Mine did. I stopped reading there. This is what we learned in the election controversy article:
# First, summarise section by section. So people have basic orienting sections, of whats gone on.
# Then, look at the diaries and news timelines. Have no more than one of these. Perhaps create an article, "Timeline of NSA warrantless wiretap controversy", and put in that a section for each month. 
# If a section's going to sprawl, ask if all the detail is needed, or if it can be summarized and links given for the detail. if it's a key section, farm it out to a linked article. The election controversy ended up with about 6 of those, 1 for each of the main 4 areas, and a timeline, and a main summary article, or something.
# Finally, look at the article you're writing. can someone read it. 
Hope that helps. Its good work. Perhaps the above will help answer the voices of critics. FT2 (Talk) 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, do we really need the cleanup tag? I've removed it, if you disagree, please readd it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup needed 

message: This section is the most bias one sided view.  If we write an encyl article and there are two extreme points of view we should put then side by side and not "Myth" v. "Reality" .  Myth suggests that that side is untrue.  There are good arguments that the warrantless spying is illegal and that it is legal.  The better argument is not whether it is legal but wheher it is constitutional. John wesley 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth v Reality

message: If you just put proper titles, not Myth and balance it, it should be fine. John wesley 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in choosing titles like Myth, Reality

message: Editors, please discuss your issues here and come to some sort of compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an anonymous IP editor who has been doing mischief on the page; just look at his talk apge and the history of the NSA artcile.  He uses word like Myth to describe clear violations of both ECPA and FISA while credits the administration's views as Reality. John wesley 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The question of whether Congress' Use of Force declartion gives the prez the authority to spy on Americans is not yet decided.  Anon user cannot merely say that that is Reality. John wesley 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Restored section again, retitling as requested. Mr. Wesley, please refrain from speaking for everyone. If you personally don't trust your own government, that's your problem. The general public does
we can savely conclude this editor has missed the polls, saying Bush's popularity is at an all time low, for several months. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please sign your comment, else it is merely a rant.  We need to know if there is continuity. John wesley 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me John, but you removed the anon's comment  I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but please be more careful in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that it was him and not someone else breaking into the train as a third, but named ID, editor has come in the NSA stuff. John wesley 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable. However, anon, could you consider summarising the fact sheet? We have a policy of not allowing straight copy and pastes of material like this, that is the job of Wikisource. Also, could you sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who you are? Better than this, have you considered creating an account? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll unprotect the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannot call it fact merely because the DoJ sez so.  They have a dog in the fight.  EPIC and EFF may sue and assert an opposing POV.  Should not label a DoJ factsheet as The FactSheet of an encyclopedia beacuse it is misleading to nonlawyers who may read this. John wesley 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: I will edit the intro to plainly state that the fact sheet was issued in reponse to critics. John wesley 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Until anon fixes tha label

message: Because gullible readers will now know its source. John wesley 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... I think he just made it clear what was information and what was misinformation when he cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are making extraordinary claims.  Can you provide evidence and citations from reliable sources to verify them? Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think the article is too long now.  There is enough in there to inform readers of the Bush Admin's opponents and also civil libertarians concerns that it may be illegal.  It also contains the administration's, via DoJ, position as to its proper conduct.  I think it covers it.  The article is also about the controversy.  This makes the article an inviting place for a play by play but unfortunately this makes it too big for easy use.  If we could make the artcile shorter, it would be more useful.  We just what to make sure we leave the esssential points of both sides and a sufficient discussion of how the story broke ans the Congress and Admin response.  The editorials and Polls are actually outside the scope.  It would belong in a different article say on: reaction to the NY Times breaking the story.  John wesley 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I just added the actual text of the 72 hour emergency provision in FISA. Some of the statements in the "fact sheet" do not appear to be in the law. There is not requirement I can see that the AG find that the emergency order "will be approved by the court", nor that NSA lawyers sign off on it first.  However, I do find the verbatim fact sheet useful, I'd rather not have it digested, but well sourced rebuttal arguments should follow it.--agr 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now I think the ''Fact Sheet'' is less misleading

message: Since there is great objection to these two sections, not just from me but others before as seen in History, and shortening and slightly revising this article is a goal, could these two sections be permanently removed in their entirety? It would greatly improve the article to do so. Please see my posts above on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs) 
------
5/19/06 Kevin, you asked about proof about the polls being steered to get a certain response. I excerpted the following article  to the relevant parts:
Tuesday, January 31st, 2006
Poll Perspectives
I took a look at two recent polls, once each by the LA Times and Bloomberg,  and by CBS News and the New York Times.  What I found tells a much different story than the media would have you believe. The headlines in the LA and NY Times do their utmost to sell the lie that Bush is failing, when the facts in their own polling speak to the contrary. I chose to detail these two polls, because no one can reasonably claim that the LA and NY Times or Bloomberg or CBS News has any interest whatsoever in advancing support for President Bush or the Republican Party. Therefore, any statement in their polling which does so must be at least as strong as stated; their pretense in print scurrying to the Left as always. 
First, I would like to address the methodology of both polls. The LA Times/Bloomberg poll fails to fully disclose the nature of their respondent poll, stating only that “1,555 adults nationwide” were contacted “by telephone January 22 through 25”. While the LA Times claims that the respondent poll was “weighted slightly to conform with” Census numbers by “sex, race, age, education, and region”, they also admit that “certain subgroups” may have results which skew the error margin “somewhat higher.” Just how badly the poll misses the target, one can only guess. It should be noted from the LA Times’ statements however, that they did not weight their polling to match known party identification, they did not make any effort to ensure that rural adults were properly contacted, or that the unemployed and low-level employed would not be over-represented. Yet the nature of their methodology (all-telephone polling, with three of the four days during the work week) strongly implies a bias against professionals and traditional family structures, and hints at heavy dependency on the urban, the under-employed, the coasts, and the young (this can be done while pretending to follow Census guidelines by allowing for broader age classifications – legitimate polls limit age groups to static ranges, but newspaper-based polling often accepts a variable range, allowing them to manipulate polling by oversampling, say, 20-25 year olds and using them in place of 35-39 year olds, but lumping them all in the same class to pretend objectivity). 
As for the CBS News/NY Times poll, I have mentioned before that while I find their conclusions unreasonable many times, I still respect the poll for relatively transparent reporting of its respondent pool. The CBS/NYT poll also contacted its respondents by telephone, but for over five days instead of four, including the weekend. The CBS/NYT poll did not reveal specifics on the demographics of its respondents, but weights its poll according to the 2000 Census. A key indicator, which CBS/NYT has always supplied, is the hard numbers of party identification. The unweighted tally for the poll showed 1.229 adults, with 469 identifying themselves as “Independent” (yes, that seems a bit high to me), 388 calling themselves “Democrats”, and 372 calling themselves Republicans. After weighting, the poll decreased the Independents’ weight to 456 effective respondents out of 1,228, and decreased the Republican weight to 360, while increasing the Democrat weight to 412. Obviously I find such weighting absurd in the face of known results from the 2004 and 2002 elections, but at least with the CBS/NYT poll, they are up-front about telling you how they played with the numbers. The reader can understand the lean the poll has from the beginning.
With this in mind, we can now examine the meat of the polls. I skipped the summary presented by the papers because the screed and lying was predictable. I say ‘lying’, because the facts in the poll results themselves tell a story worth hearing. In the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, for instance, despite the clear bias of the poll’s sponsors, the actual results bear up rather well for Bush and the GOP. On page 13, for example, Bush rolls in at 46% overall for “honest and trustworthy”, but that’s better than the Republicans’ 38%, which is better than the 36% claimed by Democrats. Note that Independents gave the GOP in Congress a 38 favorable to 34 unfavorable nod, while tagging the Democrats with a 31 favorable/41 unfavorable slap. That alone proves that the LAT heavily weighted the polling to avoid a steep lean against the Democrats. Or to put it this way, let’s see the numbers as the LAT printed them:
Group…..ALL…..DEM…..IND…..REP
Dem Fav…..36……54……31……18
Dem Unfav…45……27……41……70
Rep Fav…..38……16……38……71
Rep Unfav…44……67……34……19
If we simply balance the three groups evenly, here’s the new result:
Group…..ALL…..DEM…..IND…..REP
Dem Fav…..34……54……31……18
Dem Unfav…46……27……41……70
Rep Fav…..42……16……38……71
Rep Unfav…40……67……34……19
That is, a balanced response moves a 2-point advantage for the GOP up to an 8-point advantage. Well, well.
Even though the poll is clearly biased against Bush and the GOP, on page 14 we see that overall response to the question of whether George W. Bush’s polices “have made the country more secure” is Yes by a 52 to 21 point response. Even Democrats (34% to 33%) have grudgingly agreed to this. If this were weighted to correct the bias, the support would be even more pronounced.
...snip snip...
Well, there’s always the PATRIOT Act. Surely people hate that, right? Overall, 59% “agree with those who want to reauthorize provisions” of the Act. Hmm, well that’s interesting. 
Well, what about that NSA domestic spying thing? While the issue is controversial, 52% of the total respondents said that even if “a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law”, they would say his action was “not an impeachable offense”. 
...snip snip...
And CBS/NYT was forced to admit that 61% of respondents think his NSA authorizations were intended primarily to fight terrorism. His approval numbers on that question have climbed 4 points in 3 weeks. 
CBS/NYT was forced to admit that the American public “support the idea of monitoring the communications of those the government is suspicious of”, by a 68% to 28% count.
...snip snip...
Of course, both polls played the “push poll” game, by asking questions with emotional weight while hiding important information from the respondents. For instance, they asked whether people felt there were more terrorist incidents now, without citing the statistics showing the actual conditions. They asked about how people felt the economy was doing, without pointing to low unemployment and inflation, and strong GDP growth over Bush’s time in office. But it is still interesting, for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support. 
-- DJ Drummond
I think I've more then adaquetly proved my point. All the italics and bold above are from the author, I just kept them while excerpting these parts for you. Yes this is from a Conservative page, but I've seen the same thing claimed on Liberal pages about polls that they don't like the results of too. This shows that polls are not reliable, truthful, and are often skewed. 
P.S. The polls on the public supporting the media are also at an all-time low. Newspapers are down in subscriptions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs) 
:I neither like or dis-like the contents of the Polls and Editorial, I really think they are too big and in an already large article, one sentence saying that: Most polls show some suspicion, but the public are not as concerned (some show majority not-concerned) as the media; and that some editorials have condemned the program while others see it as an effective tool against terrorism then link to them.  It should not be so so long and article.  BTW, technically I think Polls and Editorials are beyond the scope of this article.  Do I see this wrong or not? John wesley 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this (copied from the first link provided in it) is rhetoric rather than rational argument (for instance: " for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support. "  okay, now the standard practice of polling have all become enemies of bush on account of their not doing anything different than they have in the past couple of decades?  give me a break.), and, as such, is unconvincing, even distasteful. Kevin Baastalk 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any answers to my concerns there. Kevin Baastalk 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorials & Polls Removal

message: 5/22/06 This is not related directly to the article, I just wanted to let the Wiki editors here who work on it know that when I am not using this computer, I will put "At home" first in the memo that goes in History before I say what change(s) I made, so that you will know that it's me doing it from another computer, instead of another anomymous person. Also, I noticed in the Historys at Wikipedia that my home computer changes IP numbers by itself. I don't know how to make it stable, so I will just put "At home" so that you will know who it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs) 
:Wikipedia resolved the problems with changing IP when they introduced the possibility of having a personal account. Feel free to make an account, and it may help you reduce the worries of not being recognized. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dual-IP: you wrote in an edit summary: "Neutrality put up since some of you are fighting against improving the article."  I don't think this bad faith accusation is appropriate. Kevin Baastalk 14:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your response was more bad faith.  please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. thanks. Kevin Baastalk 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to misunderstand an essential distinction: good faith does not apply to making edits - a "good faith edit" is a nonsensical phrase unless it is an edit directed at another person.  good faith applies to one's perception of other users, as the first sentence in that link makes clear. Kevin Baastalk 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: At home

message: 5/22/06 Can we all agree that this article can and should have the strongest sourcing in order to keep information in the article? As it is now, the article is too inclusive and has too much information. Can we agree that uncredited quotes or information with this information before it should be avoided to keep the article fair:
* knowledgeable sources (that can be a reporter's mother, father, neighbor, or anybody really just sharing an opinion)
* official(s) (government civil service workers who don't want to be named because either they don't want to lose a job, do not know what they are talking about, or even are disgruntled)
* a source (weak reporting and not reliable)
* and any unnamed off the record source 
That any news media reports using any of the above or any variation of it, are weak reporting with low standards and can or should not be taken as good enough to include for an "encyclopedia". Removing this from the article will greatly enhance it. 
Sourcing that is ok:
* On the record and named Executive branch, Legislative branch, and Judicial branch people who have direct jurisdiction over the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
* Other named "experts" who are quoted about the Terrorist Surveillance Program and not about the media frenzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs) 
:Although I agree that anonymous sources are potentially unreliable, we must not create our own univers. Fact is, no news organisation works without such sources, and for good reason. Most importantly, everybody knows what happens to dissenters in the Bush administration. Generals disputing correctly that the invasion of Iraq is adequately prepared: dismissed. Scientists disputing this administration's habit of rewriting scientific articles, they get a minder who talks to the preess for them. I can go on, but you understand that nobody will speak up when he knows his job is on the line. To demand that refernces can only be used when the souce is named is not only ridiculous, it is unrealistic. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment proves you have not read a newspaper, or other forms of news, for years. Feel free to continue ignoring reality. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that when the NYT, or WaPo use "unnnamed sources" they are making things up? Further, how is your ignoring the facts better than me insisting on them? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: unsigned, according to your logic, we shouldn't have impeached Nixon for watergate. Kevin Baastalk 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News Media Sourcing

message: 5/24/06 Before I do anything in this section, and get yelled at for taking too much out I wanted to come here first and make sure it is ok. I know that one of the things you want to cover is:
* Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers
even though, I personally think it is out of the scope of this article. You know over the years there is always tension between our branches of government so power struggles are common.
What I wanted to know if it is ok, if we limit the Congressional stuff to be concrete movement instead of the current all inclusive rhetoric and movement. For example, in the Congressional Response section in the first jurdiction section, we have the members of a committee sending a forgetable letter that is not even quoted from that is less then newsworthy to include here. I say that because it is never referred to or does not mark any kind of movement in the story. Letters, excess rhetoric by members of relevant committee clutter the article when we should mainly just include any bills they introduce, hearings they hold, and anything the committees do officially that moves things. Please let me know if that is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs) 
:Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican party. If you limit coverage to "official action", we will only get one side of the story. That's not to say nothing can be trimmed, but rhetoric can be important. --agr 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair to me, though there are probably some diverse views on what's important.  I think chronological order is important to make a coherent dialogue that is consistent with the way things happened in reality.  I also think that the manner of quoting excerpts and the like, as I brought up in a section below, should be better fleshed out and implemented, and that this will help us put the pieces in a chronological narrative of important events, expressions, issues, etc. Kevin Baastalk 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On further thought, I think you should go ahead and trim the congressional section.  No need to wait for any kind of consensus about emphasis and style of quotations - it is too long.  Jus tmake the chagnges, not too drastic if it might be controversial, and if any changes are disputed, the procedure on controversial pages is that you let the revert stand and bring it to the talk page.
I think everything should be fine. Kevin Baastalk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming Congressional Coverage

message: I think chronological order is always a fair way to organize info.  We could put the DOJ and CRC in the order that they occured in real life, thus minimizing interpretation / injecting of POV through organization.
*We could have a section going over the battle (and BTW, the CRC is known for it's neutrality, objectiveness, and nonpartisianship - so it's a stretch to say that it repersents a "POV".) between the CRC and DOJ, or
*we could have sections w/size proportional to their authorativeness, with the sections in roughly chronological order (this would put the CRC section after the fact sheet, and make it much larger than the fact sheet).
In any case, I agree w/what seems to be a shared premise in Nescio and Reaverdrop's suggestions: that we should try to match premise for premise (aka argument for counter-argument) so that people get all sides of each particular issue, rather than just "all sides" in the abstract. Kevin Baastalk 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Crust 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll sign on to it John wesley 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By summarizing the DoJ response as I suggested. Yet another reason to object to this copying the entire document.(hyperbole) Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as seems to be suggested in the section below. Straw poll, anyone?
Summarize DOJ section.
# Kevin Baastalk 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Baas's ideas re:balance 

message: Some of this information just needs to be moved to Wikisource, since most (all?) of the quotes are public domain.  The contents should be summarized in the article instead of quoted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long article, move to Wikisource 

message: This article uses a lot of quotations, but the manner and style in which they are used is inconsistent.  I think the article can be significantly improved by cleaning this up.  I also think that this will make it significantly more clear and thus make it easier for us to discuss more abstract issues such as balance. (and the CRS section needs some work).
I don't know what the standard is, but what i've been doing is blockquoting quotations of written works and italicizing spoken words. thoughts? Kevin Baastalk 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  style of quotations in article 

message: *I propose we get a verified copy of that giant DoJ doc (if the doc itself is in question) up on wikisource:. then link to it. we can't have a huge disputed section in an article that's way too long. that's what I think. WɔlkUnseen 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kevin Baastalk 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: doj doc business getting silly

message: put up the tag, but I don't think "why" was ever articulated. was this user in the middle of a fight at the time? if you look at hez contribs, s/he does not seem to be one of those conscientious anon users that we sometimes see. a reason this tag might stay up: it was removed at some point, and restored for some reason that someone made clear. note: the DoJ thing has been section-POV tagged since before the  tag was put at the top. aight? WɔlkUnseen 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are any other sections in dispute, and on what specific grounds?  Speak now or forever hold your peace. Kevin Baastalk 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality tag 

message: Editorial section - something that should be discussed.  i saw the change and did not revert it.  that section stands out from the others.  I'd put it last if including it, but I don't think it contributes to the value of the article as much as any of the other sections, and this article is too long. Kevin Baastalk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep, at least the more relevant samples - even the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes cites surveys of the nation's editorial pages, as they did in the Cheney Energy_Task_Force case. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editorial section: remove or keep? 

message: ABA - I think the American Bar Association (mentioned in the intro) deserves a section here, summarizing their report.  They're definitely more substantial than the individuals in the "other views" section. They're the American Bar Association, for phil's sake. Kevin Baastalk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section for ABA? 

message: I found in the "Other legal analysis" section what I was earlier confusing with the CRS report: 
:*Fourteen of the nation's top constitutional scholars, from across the political spectrum, sent a legal brief to leading members of Congress in which they concluded that "the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program... appears on its face to violate existing law." PDF copy of letter as sent to Congressional leaders by Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, *Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne. On NSA spying: a letter to Congress as included in the New York Review of Books, By Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne. After the Department of Justice released its memo of January 19 arguing for the legality of the program, the same fourteen authors issued a second letter to the same Congressional leaders rebutting the Justice Department's legal analysis.  PDF copy of rebuttal letter sent to Congressional leaders by Nolan, Bradley, Cole, Stone, Koh et al.
Said DoJ memorandums are nmuch more substantial and are not in the DoJ section.  Also, the letters and rebuttals from these lawyers to put these docs in context as well as to balance POV. Kevin Baastalk 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  for DOJ section 

message: What say we move the "News reports" section to the "Terrorist surveillance program" article?  I think it's much more relevant there.    it speaks nothing of a controversy, it just releases details of a program. Kevin Baastalk 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article length fix: move News reports section? 

message: I've started a /Timeline. Kevin Baastalk 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronological order 

message: Okay, proposed new version. Kevin Baastalk 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good improvement. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to say that this is a million times better! At the very least it removes that silly "News coverage" section, which really has no place in an encyclopedic article. Let's give this somewhat over a week of debate and see what else needs to be covered then switch over. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new version

message: this statement in the lead paragraph appears to needs copyediting, it doesn't make much sense, atleast to me. 
"The controversy extends to the questions of the power the President to authorize the NSA"
*is a "has" missing between the "the" and the "president"? 
*"the questions" sounds awkward, as it's not clear what the precise questions are, from the context, but the use of the definite article "the" demands such a ... ummm..., definiteness. 
*are the questions to do with the powers of the Pres. to "authorise the NSA" or authorise these particlar actions by the NSA?
Doldrums 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "The controversy extends to the question of whether the president has the power to authorize illegal activities."? Kevin Baastalk 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually part of that aspect of the controversy is the respective roles of legislature and executive - the legislature's being to write laws and the president's being to "faithfully execute" them (according to the constitution) - so it might be "president's power to write laws", or in that he believes he can apply his own interpretation, the "president's power of judicial review".  point being that it's a multi-faceted topic.  Kevin Baastalk 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And for everbody's reference, Gonzales is spelled w/a Z. Kevin Baastalk 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with lead paragraph 

message: I'm 'bout to create US person right now. reverted edit by  to point to it. 151.204.30.33 is in the loop.  see my talk. anyone else interested jump in. WɔlkUnseen 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to US person 

message: it's been over a week since i proposed a new version of this article - a total reorganization.  In that time, it's had 3 endorsements and no objections, so I'm going to replace the current version of the article with it.  changes made to the current article in the past week can be found in the history and reapplied. no harm intended, and i'll try to do some myself. Kevin Baastalk 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the diff of all the changes since i proposed the new version:  Kevin Baastalk 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  replacing w/proposed version 

message: I think that it will become a good idea, pretty soon, to split fo the inquires/investigations section into a sub-article and summarize it here, for the sake of both article length and completeness. Kevin Baastalk 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article length and subarticles 

message: and surrounding events needs to be integrated into the article.
Also, i suggest we split of congressional investigations into a subarticle and summarize it, for the sake of article length and informativeness. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to write a summary so we can do this.  And I agree that the other programs is kinda tangential.  a link in the "see also" is sufficient. Kevin Baastalk 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new events and suggested split 

message: anyone? CrackityKzz 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: read the tag.  I put it up there cause i found myself wikifying a lot of stuff. Kevin Baastalk 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there a wikify tag?