5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Patriot Act/controversy (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, April 9, 2008
, 20:13, April 9, 2008Discussion
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
== Discussion ==
The first sentence is written that way intentionally, as it is an introduction to the rest of the section, where I believe your questions are answered. If you don't like the article starting out that way, I have no problem striking the first sentence completely and then moving the rest of that paragraph to the end of the whole section; it doesn't make a horrible conclusion.
I agree with the stricken portions, and would probably say that the statement by the FBI is pretty much meaningless and should be stricken too. Now if there were a statement by some third party, then it would be very useful to the article.
I just had another thought. What if, instead of trying to "fix" the controversy section to fit in with the rest of the article, we move it to a seperate article entirely? This way we could say "opponents say X, but conservatives say Y", without overshadowing the rest of the article. I think that a controversy section is important, but also that a "response to the controversy" section is even more important, since this is a conservative encyclopedia. This response is really what is mostly lacking right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT) PS: As I said on the other talk page, I will work up some more specifics later tonight and write a proposal for some more specific answers to Ed's question. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]]