Talk:ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014

Criticism

This article is written from a biased point of view, and the article virtually implies that the bill is already law. It isn't.

There is no discussion of the bill from an objective standpoint; the article was clearly written by a supporter of this bill.

There needs to be a section in here which includes discussion of the drawbacks of this bill. As it stands, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to legitimize the bill's merits, and nothing more.

2601:2:1280:256:C5A1:8399:2B18:341 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Jerry Murrel (Wikipedia user)

I respectfully object to the notion that this article implies the bill is law. First, throughout the article, it uses future tense rather than present tense - the bill would do something (if passed), not the bill does something (because it's law). It also uses the word "bill" as the noun, rather than the word "law" or "act", which would be appropriate if it were a law. The lead states that it was passed by the House, but makes no mention of it becoming law. The infobox lists only House passage. Finally, the procedural history lists House passage, along with the expectation that it would fail in the Senate and the promise of the Obama administration to veto the bill. There is no way anyone could read this article and think that it is already a law.

As to the content... I have found, in my research, that it is often easier to find information from the people who support a bill (who are shouting loudly about it) than it is to find information from detractors. If I included too much information from supporters and too little from the opposition, it has more to do with the information I found first and the limits of my time for this project, not my own opinion. I do apologize if it isn't sufficiently neutral.

Finally, if you object to the content, be bold and add to it! Clearly you don't like the bill - hopefully that means you've read something in opposition to it and can use that as a source to add to Wikipedia and improve the article.

Thanks for your comments. It's good to know there are people interested in reading about legislation on Wikipedia. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the conditional mood, not the future tense, but I think you have the better of it, Historic. I agree with welcoming arguments against the bill. JimHarperDC (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323134954/http://majorityleader.gov/floor/3-10-14.pdf to http://majorityleader.gov/floor/3-10-14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)