Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act

Re: Page & Portal

dear 'internet partner' the sopa/pipa are down (And we have to celebrate :D) and the acta is sadly (For The europeans) going around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.83.42 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Defamation!!!!!

Is this article considered defamation! @--WOLfan112 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ask? What do you think is wrong with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes SOPA seem sooooooooooooo bad!--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It accurately describes the proposed legislation, and various responses to it. That's not bad. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of some good points it doesn't cover ? Penyulap _talk 18:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs more neutrality!--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but we still need to think of things, and text, before we can add it. Any ideas ? Penyulap _talk 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can't get anything to counter the negative stuff, I'm afraid there's not much one can do about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then someone needs to remove the "not neutral" tag.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I like WOLfan's approach. Doing now. Sloggerbum (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT. SO PLEASE STOP REPORTING ME TO ADMINISTRATORS.--UserWOLfan112 Talk 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have nothing to worry about. If an admin thought this was a legal threat, you'd be blocked by now. But you're not. So please stop shouting. Reach Out to the Truth 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the sources are messed up

Human Rights Watch is mentioned as one of the organizations opposing the bill; however the CNET article provided as source says "A few dozen civil-liberties and left-leaning advocacy groups from around the globe now are circulating their own letter (PDF), which says that "through SOPA, the United States is attempting to dominate a shared global resource." Signers include Bits of Freedom in the Netherlands, the Electronic Frontier Finland, Reporters Without Borders, and, in the United States, Free Press and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Notably absent are the two biggest such advocacy groups: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International."

Also, sources 148 and 149 have been mixed up with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.195.16 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

SOPA similar to PIPA

Since we've had a pretty convinced anonymous edit warrior here, does anyone else see a problem with the language stating that SOPA is similar to PIPA? Every source I've seen that compares the two calls them similar (or something analogous), and I've added a source specifically to that effect, so I'm not really seeing the problem. Anyone else see one with it, or that the language needs to be changed? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While the two pieces of proposed legislation are not identical, reliable sources have certainly referred to them as similar -- some sources calling one "the House version" of the other, etc. It would be helpful if the IP would more clearly explain his/her concerns with the present language on this talk page, as I am not seeing proper justification in the brief edit summaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not identical in ANY WAY, and if you want to start making accusations of me being an "edit warrior" you should know that YOU were the first to undo my edit. What an abuse of power it is to undo my changes enforced by the bot after it the article was locked.

SOPA is legislation targeting and combating piracy. PIPA does not have that purpose. PIPA simply allows the federal government to notify private entities of security threats and compromises to it's electronic infrastructure. Ignorance on this topic is strange for a person who started an edit war to promote baseless rhetoric and has the privilege to edit locked articles. Feel free to visit the PIPA article to see what the bill actually is.

Show me ONE source where a person made that statement based on comparing the laws and finding language that was majorly similar to SOPA or vice versa. You can't - they are simply mislead empty OPINIONS stated as fact.

VIIMach (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason we evaluate sources for reliability. The New York Times (as an example) does not need to exhaustively detail its fact-checking process for every article it prints in order for us to consider it reliable. Rather, we rely on their reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and correction of errors when discovered to presume that if they printed a fact, we can presume it correct. Now, of course, if multiple reliable sources do not agree on which position is correct, then we can't take one as correct—we state that the issue is in dispute and summarize the nature of the dispute, without "taking a side" or evaluating it ourselves. In this case, though, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that SOPA and PIPA are so similar as to be discussed interchangeably. I showed you more down with your edit request, and I could probably show you hundreds more that refer to SOPA and PIPA interchangeably or as extremely similar, and I've placed one quite reliable source (the Christian Science Monitor) that explicitly uses the "similar" language. Since that assertion can be clearly sourced, you need to show sources that dispute the similarity, not just keep arguing it. Even if I agreed with you personally, we go with what the sources say, we don't editorialize. I cannot find a single source that disputes the widespread assertion that the bills are similar and interchangeable, so if you have one, by all means provide it and we can talk about integrating it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Do any of those supposed sources review the law by it's specific language? No; They're just baseless opinions. And we're considering the NYT to be a reliable source? Wow, journalistic standards a pretty low here.

My point is that the bill itself is not similar to SOPA. If you just read the bill, you'd see. If that's perhaps too long, you can read these summaries at the LOC website.

Here's the one for SOPA: <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@L&summ2=m&

Notice this language: Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

and this:

Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription.

Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of: (1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and (2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.

Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.

Show me where any of this language or similar language is found within PIPA - not baseless statements without fact. I'd like to see this article written on the basis of the actual text of the law rather than journalistic opinion.

The burden of proof rests on those who disagree now.

PIPA LOC Summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@L&summ2=m&

SOPA Legislation Online Copy: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:/ PIPA Legislation Online Copy: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112vZcG1c::/

VIIMach (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

VIIMach, I moved your comment up here, since it concerns the discussion on the issue and the edit request section was already resolved. I hope you don't mind, I'd just like to keep the entire discussion in one thread for ease of reference. As to reading the two bills, that would constitute original research. As it so happens, I have read both bills, in several of their iterations as they went through the process. You'll note I've carefully refrained from offering my opinion in the matter, because for the purposes of editing the article, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm not a reliable source, neither are you, and we do not allow original research or original study and interpretation of primary sources as the basis for article content. If you think all these sources that are saying they are the same are wrong in doing so, contact them. If they publish corrections/retractions, by all means, we'll consider that when writing the article. But your own interpretation matters just as much as mine does—which is to say, not at all. If the sources discussing the matter show a strong consensus that the bills are similar, as they clearly do both explicitly and by discussing them as interchangeable, we follow that consensus of sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So some journalists' opinions trump what the bill actually says? That's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIIMach (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, if you can find a reliable published source saying "Hey, these aren't similar at all!", we'd certainly look at integrating that in. But yes, since we require strict neutrality, we do not editorialize or insert our own opinions into articles. The sources override your interpretation of what the bill says, as it's clear from the source volume that many people disagree with your interpretation, and it's clear from the lack of sources saying otherwise that not many agree. (And believe me, journalists and academics alike love to poke one another for being in error.) Does that explain why the article is as it is to your satisfaction? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This -> "Show me where any of this language or similar language is found within PIPA" has not been addressed. I just don't see the evidence that they are similar in any way just by looking at the two bills side by side. VIIMach (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than repeating myself again, since we seem to have reached a bit of an impasse, I'll request a third opinion from a previously uninvolved editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I cannot give a Third Opinion (note upper case here) under the auspices of the Third Opinion Project because I have had previous dealings with Seraphimblade. That does not mean, however, that I cannot give a (note lower case here) third opinion independent of that project. Here 'tis: This is a matter controlled by Wikipedia policy. The Verifiability policy says,

"Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. ... This principle has been historically and notably expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". ... When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight."

The fact that you do not see the evidence, VIIMach, when you compare the bills is essentially irrelevant to the way Wikipedia works; it is that which has been reported in reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, that determines whether or not something can be in Wikipedia. That's not to say that everything which is verifiable should go in Wikipedia; there are things which are published in reliable sources which are so unrelated to reality — truth, if you will — that they cannot go in or can go in only as a minor reference, but the way that those things are determined is to show that the great weight of what is said in reliable sources contradicts those things. (See WP:FRINGE for more background on that issue.) Seraphimblade is exactly right: if SOPA and PIPA are as dissimilar as you believe, then there should be a huge mass of references in reliable sources contradicting the sources which say that they are. Once you produce proof that such a mass of sources exists, then the conflict of opinions may be described in the article, but your personal opinion of whether they are similar or dissimilar is irrelevant and trying to get it into an article will be prohibited by the No original research policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) One more word: I don't want to leave the impression that what you're trying to do, VIIMach, is a bad thing, it's just not the way we do things here. This essay might help you understand where we're coming from here and might help you decide what you would like to do here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012

Please remove language stating PIPA is similar to SOPA and vice versa. The source provided is a link to a commentary article that does not compare language, intentions, and functions of the bill explicitly, but rather mislead opinion and rhetoric.

Source statement in context:

Q. What is Congress trying to accomplish?

A. The two main bills are the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, in the Senate, and the similar Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House. There are already laws on the books to combat domestic websites trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods, but little to counter foreign violators.

The bills would allow the Justice Department, and copyright holders, to seek court orders against foreign websites accused of perpetrating or facilitating copyright infringement. While there is little the United States can do to take down those websites, the bills would bar online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as credit card companies and PayPal from doing business with an alleged violator. It also would forbid search engines from linking to such sites.

As you can plainly see, the statement is an empty one. The author doesn't refer to specific text from either pieces of legislation. The first sentence in the second paragraph is also simply not factual. SOPA is the only bill in which the above functions are outlined; not PIPA.

VIIMach (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit request (though I will not decline it since I'm involved in the debate). This source from PCWorld discusses SOPA and PIPA as the same thing: [1]. This one from Forbes does as well: [2]. And CNet: [3]. These are hardly fly-by-night or unreliable sources, and I could list dozens more that clearly treat the bills as equivalent or extremely similar. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'll close as  Not done per Seraphimblade. FloBo A boat that can float! 12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

There have been recent edits attempting to replace the existing Category:Internet access with the Subcategory:Internet censorship in the United States, with the most recent edit summary stating:

• (rv good faith edit; This is very widely described as censorship. Not every kind of censorship is necessarily bad; it can mean suppression of communication that is objectively harmful.)

In reality, there have been a lot of allegations and speculation about "censorship", but the bill has not been "very widely described as censorship" by reliable sources. The current president of the U.S. has been "widely described" as being a secret Muslim, or a native of Kenya, but we do not append such categories to the article as if these disputed allegations were facts. "Internet access" is an indisputably applicable category; "Internet censorship" is not. And even less so when "...in the United States" is added to the category description, and applied to an article that states, "[the bill] targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity". Xenophrenic (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between calling SOPA "censorship" and calling Barack Obama "a secret Muslim" is that the first is a mainstream view, whereas the second is WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia article describes it as occurring "in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property." Censorship is in fact pretty difficult to define, but as long as we present a definition, it makes sense to use that for categories. SOPA has been protested as censorship by such organizations as Google, Wired, and Wikipedia [4]. President Barack Obama has not been charged with being a secret Muslim or Kenyan outside of the marginal extreme, so the proposed analogy you're making is very much off.

Regarding your last point, SOPA is a distinctly American project. Category Internet access is quite broad and includes things like "Broadband", "Mobile Internet" and "Wi-Fi"; this would be the relevant subcategory (If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second.) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)