Talk:President Bush to limit congressional oversight in PATRIOT amendment act

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm thinking that if we can find the study that Savage is referencing when he says "I think one study showed that through the end of 2004, there were more than 500 provisions of new laws that he had said that he would not consider himself bound to obey..." then we should cite that study. Right now it has the whole "he said she said" and "I think" problem to it. I am searching but haven't found it yet. --Meanmeancoffeebean 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't see the main focus of this article, and find it very confusing. I've pulled it back from publish state and added the cleanup tag, because I don't see a clear topic nor the relationing of items on the article page. Also, title may be misleading due to the omission of the "Patriot Act" bill in the title, as it suggests that Bush doesn't follow any rules. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

heh, yes, the Patriot Act needs to be mentioned.  :) Nyarlathotep 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How about

Bush signing statement rejects congressional oversight of Patriot Act powers

A tiny bit long, but gets it all in. Maybe there is a better word than "powers"? Nyarlathotep 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight?? We already have an article on this topic, and no one is interested in fixing it. Most of the same issues (old news, POV presentation, single source) applying to that article also apply to this one. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fine title, I liked "signing statment" only due to my prior ignorance of their existnace. Not sure if two articles on a subject ar acceptable, but I don't object to doubles, as long as tehy fix things. Axtually, I quite like the idea of posting a doulble and taging the older as "Wikinews has improved its coverage of this event this the following article ...", as it avoids revisionism & improves the article, but I'd prefer if such doubles had objecting parties (MrM & you here) to actually concuring that the new article is better than the old one. Of course, you need to make sure this isn't the old one pushed back to develop somehow. Whatever, I'm not on enough to have an influence anyway. Nyarlathotep 23:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am the author of this article. I hope you can be tolarate of my faults. I am not a reporter, obviously. And am new to wikinews. However I am interested in this story - and many others - being out in the world. I personally had never heard of signing statements and was interested and on the face of it, it seems like a way that a president could rewrite legislation to suit their own ends. I have found the acdemic study by proffesor Kelly here [1]I have not had a chance to read it. There is another article on signing statements that refer to another paper by Prof. kelly [2]to here [3] I am interested in continueing with this story but do not want just use a bunch of time with someting that will get no where. So if one of you would like to work on it i am sure you could come up with something of value. I will probally read over this material just for my own interest. Isles 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title fixed and publish[edit]

The editors who discussed the title seemed to have been ok with Patriot Act inclusion and I can see no other problems? If so, please replace tag and outline specific actionable objections to be corrected. Neutralizer 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, read up, please. There are other issues raised with this article. <reverts> --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, please explain,MrM ;I can not figure out what your issues are. Neutralizer 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

major rewrite[edit]

this story has undergone a major rewrite including title change with more points of views given and sorced and some back ground for signing statements. can we puplish? Isles 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't offer any content comment, but I got sort-of turned off going through the first three paragraphs. It needs to have a summary of the whole piece in the first paragraph. At the moment it tells me Bush did something, but not why it is potentially significant. If there's any controversy over how significant it is, it needs to say who claims it is significant, then following paragraphs can go into the background and context of the action. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There seems to be no actionable objections; just esoteric vague objections. Does anyone want to stop the publishing of this article? If so, please state your actionable objections. Neutralizer 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? This is, IMO not news. The title doesn't make me want to read this either. I think it still needs to be rewritten into a news form. This looks and sounds like an editorial. Where is the news in this article?? Jason Safoutin 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok; looks like Doldrums fixed it. Any more problems? Neutralizer 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]