Talk:Ajit Pai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism & Investigations[edit]

This is a link to a letter to Inspector General Hunt, on the US Senate website, signed by 14 senators calling for an investigation into Ajit Pai dated November 15, 2017. In particular they are worried about Pai's objectivity and the Sinclair / Tribune Merger. https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/11152017%20Letter%20to%20Inspector%20General.pdf Jeffery Thomas 13:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality[edit]

The article reads a bit like an advertisement for the guy, talking him up. It is also a BLP and missing sources. --LauraHale (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost 5 years have gone by and this still reads like an advertisement for the guy. I guess he's perfect... --180.191.119.103 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, No links to criticism here? This guy is a poster child for the revolving door telecommunications companies have with the "government"

The guy is generally hated in the security and privacy community. Personally, I think he should be investigated as he has never seen a corporate interest he didn't favour but that's just opinion. Unfortunately for whatever reason while people don't like him or what he's doing there hasn't really been any deep digs into this guy that I've seen. His plans have been called nonsense, there was a petition for him to be fired, the press really doesn't like him, the man is a master of doublespeak, etc... but nobody has really put together a coherent piece on him that covers everything that I've seen. Jeffery Thomas 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A section should be included concerning his scandals or criticisms at least. Nobody is this perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.106.128.40 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He should not be part of the FCC along with the other two Republican commissioners that voted to repeal Net Neutrality today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:0:91D:CD6D:EA6:A126:EF8C (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV concerns[edit]

Still missing additional references. How do we know the DOB? Dates of birth for his children? Seems like self-published? WatchDogUS (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daveburstein (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Removed non-neutral comments and markers about the problem. In particular, I removed "and to ensure that new network infrastructure will not be subject to outdated, monopoly-era regulations." The most important regulation discussed in the "IP transition" proceeding requires the telco to serve all customers, universal service. I think that universal service is even more important in Internet days, because of the importance of Internet access. It is not neutral to call that outdated. Pai believes so, and a quote of his opinion would be appropriate. But Wikipedia should not include that opinion as part of the contributions to the article. I also changed "free market" position to less regulation. Again, quoting Pai's opinion would be appropriate but such an opinion should not be presented as Wikipedia fact. I believe free markets require strong competition. Many of Pai's positions harmed competition and included eliminating regulations needed to protect competition. It is non-neutral to interpret anti-competitive actions as "free market." Deregulation may or may not promote the free market. A free market, I believe, is compromised by companies with strong market power. Dave Burstein[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2017[edit]

"Pai gave his first major speech since taking office on July 18, 2012" Seems wrong given that he was appointed by TRUMP. Google shows that he gave this speech in March 2017. Google Ajit Pai+ Carnegie Mellon. Please correct.2001:56A:7347:D800:7CF0:682B:AB62:1379 (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 2001:56A:7347:D800:7CF0:682B:AB62:1379 (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as he was appointed to the FCC by Obama in May 2012 - Arjayay (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At Mitch McConnell's request but yeah... Obama appointed him to the FCC then Trump made him chairman. Jeffery Thomas 06:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2017[edit]

due to the crucial impact of his position as chair of the FCC, i suggest that the phone number (publicly available information) be posted under "Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission" in his bio at the top right of the page. The official phone number of his office is 202 418 1000. NOTE: it is listed incorrectly as 202 418 2000, but upon calling that number a machine asks you to hang up and call the aforementioned number. 2604:2000:DD90:B000:D8F3:ED70:3475:7ECB (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I suggest reading up on WP:IMPORTANCE first; I would not post a phone number on a Wikipedia article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCOS to be more exact. Codyorb (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. A clear WP:SNOW consensus. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– With net neutrality in the news lately due to Pai planning on repealing it I think the FCC commissioner should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The New York Times, a publication known for its formal "First M. Last" standards for writing about politicians, only refers to him as "Ajit Pai" in its report today [1] following the convention of the FCC biography of Pai that uses only "Ajit Pai" [2].

Also, the cricketer is more commonly known without his middle name - "Ajit Manohar Pai" returns only 400 results vs. 22,000+ for "Ajit pai" cricket. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong agree per nom. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree Would increase page views, and per nomination. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nom as well. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree per nomination Jko831 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination in both cases. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nomination of both cases as well - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:UCRN --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 10:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination of both Sharradan (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pageview data for last month support this PRIMARYTOPIC case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nom as well. --Volvlogia (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Per nom.–Miles Edgeworth Talk 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. The FCC chair is unquestionably subject to more attention than the cricket player, making him the primary topic for this name. Likewise, he is seldom referred to with his middle initial, making his first and last name the common name. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree While he is certainly more notorious now than the cricketer, it is unclear who will be more notable in a year or so. I suspect Ajit Pai (FCC Chair) going to Ajit Pai (Former FCC Chair) and Ajit Pai Cricketer would be the right combinations. 2A02:C7D:8E71:7900:44EF:9196:62DB:CBFD (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What? His term doesn't expire in a year. Unless he gets fired or assassinated, Ajit Pai is going to be in power for the next five years. I'd also like to note that we typically don't add "Former" to the titles whether they cover events, people, or other things. Even if the cricketer had exactly as much influence as the FCC chair, we wouldn't name the article "Former FCC Chair" the same way we don't add "Former" to articles covering hurricanes once they dissipate. It's unquestionable that the FCC chair is the only one subject to widespread media coverage and controversy. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nomination for both. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong agree Per nom. Also, "Ajit Pai" Is the name the subject is publicly known by. -- Sleyece (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Csworldwide1 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — MaxEnt 01:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2017[edit]

In paragraph 1 replace "American attorney" with "Piece of shit" 69.34.97.3 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Obvious Vandalism. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything we can do to play up how dangerous this man is to the Free Internet? I feel like this article isn't quite going far enough. It's not like the neutrality of the article is going to matter if this guy gets what he wants anyway, so you might as well go ham. 138.207.135.49 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As enticing an idea that may be, it's obviously against Wikipedia policy to "go ham" on an article of a living person. Wikipedia is not a blog. Lizard (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I have nothing against the people that repeatedly vandalized the article, but for extremely obvious reasons we can't allow that and the IP editor's request should be disregarded. I believe that Wikipedia as a whole (at least its English sub-domain) should protest similar to how it protested SOPA/PIPA, but that's an entirely different discussion and requesting it here won't do anything. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really not going to put anything about net neutrality on his page at all? Or how he was an attorney for Verizon before he was appointed to the FCC? This should at minimum have a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.163.110 (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at the minimum there needs to be a section on the controversy. It wouldn't be a POV violation to state that Ajit Pai is pushing for the repeal of Title II net neutrality while there is a quantifiable overwhelming support for net neutrality. That's simply an objective fact supported by numbers and it's completely due to weight, especially considering how Pai's position as FCC chair is unambiguously what he is most known for. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017[edit]

please change the entire article to simply say "please purchase the Wikipedia package for 7$ a month to continue". Net neutrality affects Wikipedia too, make a statement he can't ignore. 202.168.23.67 (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is not a serious request. However, unless situations have changed very recently, please do realize that the Wikimedia Foundation is against net neutrality, as shown in their annual reports. --Philosophus T 10:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: There is currently no consensus of the Wikipedia community to take a stance about net neutrality. AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Wikimedia itself - https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-protecting-the-internet/ JohannVII (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article says that Wikimedia supports neutrality:
  • We support net neutrality, and believe it is crucial for a healthy, free, and open Internet.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation believes that the principle of net neutrality is critical to the future of the open Internet.

They support it but are still trying to negotiate with the ISPs just in-case the FCC wins. Sort of like future damage control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.220.169 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article written on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation confirms that Wikimedia as a whole and subsequently all of its projects officially support net neutrality, but a request like this cannot be done because such an action representing Wikipedia's official views on a subject should be done on the front page of Wikipedia, not on an individual article. This article's purpose is to offer free and encyclopedic information about the subject (Ajit Pai) and that is what it must continue to do. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017[edit]

Add a section highlighting recent controversy surrounding this individual and his part in the vote to repeal Net Neutrality laws, in a purely neutral and informative format. It is only logical for people who come to Wikipedia to research this man (likely as a result of said controversy) to be able to read about his involvement in the said controversy. However I do understand that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral stance in any article written, and as such any such section should be specifically worded to avoid showing support for/against Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai's actions, or the FCC in general.

Also on an ever so slightly related note, I feel this man doesn't deserve an entry in Wikipedia, however that's not my decision to make. 203.219.46.44 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his role in the net neutrality discourse is important; given that, why is Pai not deserving of an article in your opinion? As someone now in charge of regulating the primary information network in one of the most influential countries on the planet, he's sufficiently notable, no? JohannVII (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cocohead781 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not clear what I want to be done? I have specifically stated I want a section added that highlights controversy surrounding the individual. This isn't something that can be done in a "change X to Y" format as it isn't a change, it's an addition. Also to explain what I meant to JohannVII, I meant that basically, the individual is a bit of a tosser. I wasn't being completely serious when I said he doesn't deserve a page. Yes, he is notable. However, I feel he is undeserving of his notability, due to the fact that most people know about him simply because of this controversy around him.
So to reiterate; I want the page edited to add a section that covers recent controversy surrounding the individual. This is not a "change X to Y" formatted request. This is a "add X" formatted request. If you cannot understand this, please reserve the denial/approval of this request to somebody else. Thank you. 203.219.46.44 (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done While I agree that such a section would be beneficial and should be added to the article, you will need to be more specific as was requested. Let's not get caught up in the semantics of whether this is a "change X to Y" editor an "add X" edit. I also would like to remind all parties of this discussion to assume good faith and remain calm; the if you cannot understand this comment wasn't exactly warranted. What matters is the content we'll add. I request that you draft the information here with sources; adding an entire sub-section isn't the kind of edit that we can add in an edit request unless you provide exactly what you want us to add. Please draft the paragraph(s) to add under the new "Controversy" subsection so it can be added to the article. It will be peer-reviewed and edited to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017[edit]

Edits to eliminate biased language that holds Pai's subjective assessments and purported reasoning (or that of the article editor) to be fact:

1)

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on July 10, 2012, he warned about the dangers of regulatory uncertainty and the need for the FCC to keep pace with the dynamic communications sector.

should be changed to

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on July 10, 2012, he described his perception of the dangers of regulatory uncertainty and the need for the FCC to keep pace with the dynamic communications sector.

2)

He discussed how the FCC can help promote economic growth and enhance job creation in the information and communications technology field[18] by adhering to three basic principles: (1) the FCC should be as nimble as the industry it oversees; (2) the FCC should prioritize the removal of regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment; and (3) the FCC should accelerate its efforts to allocate additional spectrum for mobile broadband.

should be changed to

He discussed his belief that the FCC can help promote economic growth and thus increase labor demand in the information and communications technology field by adhering to three principles: (1) the FCC should be a "nimble" agency that responds quickly to Congressional mandates and industry concerns; (2) the FCC should create a regulatory environment that encourages rather than chills infrastructure investment; and (3) the FCC should accelerate its efforts to allocate additional spectrum for mobile broadband.[18]

The previous point 1 didn't accurately reflect Pai's speech, as he never characterized the telecom industry as nimble nor did he use the word in relation to the industry, but instead used it as a general descriptor, citing examples of both Congressional and industry concerns over the sometimes slow action of the agency.

3)

In October 2014, Pai wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post criticizing a government-funded research project named "Truthy" at Indiana University which was studying the spread of "false and misleading ideas, hate speech and subversive propaganda" online.

should be changed to

In October 2014, Pai wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post criticizing a government-funded research project named "Truthy" at Indiana University, which proposed to study the spread of "false and misleading ideas, hate speech and subversive propaganda" online.

4)

Truthy researchers defended the project, writing "we do not monitor individual people. The tweets we analyze are public and accessible by anyone."[24] Indiana University issued a press release which said "the Truthy project is a basic computing research project designed to provide analytical insight into the ways in which information is spread across social media networks such as Twitter."[25] U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith sent a letter to the National Science Foundation announces a review of the grant.[26]

should be removed entirely, as the response of the researchers or fate of the grant is immaterial to Pai's views.

5)

As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon.

should be changed to

As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to require cable service providers to allow customers to receive cable TV using set-top boxes other than those provided by the cable company.

The cited article makes no particular mention of specific third-party companies like Google or Amazon.

6)

Pai argued against[35] adoption of the FCC 2013 analysis[36] and proposed rulemaking regarding the high cost of inmate telephone calls, referred to as Inmate Calling Service (ICS) by the FCC.

should be changed to

Pai argued against[35] adoption of the FCC 2013 analysis[36] and proposed rulemaking regarding the cost of inmate telephone calls, referred to as Inmate Calling Service (ICS) by the FCC.

Describing the cost as high is editorializing.

7)

He submitted his written dissent in which he argued that the nature of the exclusive single carrier contract between private ICS providers and prison administrators, meant inmates cannot "count on market competition to keep prices for inmate calling services just and reasonable."[37]

should be changed to

He submitted a written dissent in which he argued that the nature of the exclusive single carrier contract between private ICS providers and prison administrators meant inmates cannot "count on market competition to keep prices for inmate calling services just and reasonable."[37]

8)

(ICS has become a $1.2 billion telecommunications industry and the two largest providers in the United States were private equity-backed companies).[38][39]:23 Prior to the FCC’s imposition of rate caps on interstate prison and jail phone calls in February 2014, the largest ICS provider Global Tel-Link (GTL) – which has been profitably bought and sold by private equity firms such as American Securities and Veritas Capital – charged some of the highest rates in the US – up to $17.30 for a 15-minute call.[40] The 2013 FCC analysis,[36] described how, in some cases, long-distance calls are charged six times the rate on the outside.[35]

should be removed, as the single-carrier nature of the system to which Pai objected is already clear from the previous sentence; people who wish to know more about the system can read the appropriate articles on it rather than an article on Pai.

9)

In 2015, Pai opposed rate caps on intrastate inmate calls over which courts have ruled the FCC has no jurisdiction,[42] notwithstanding rates as high as $54 per minute.[43]

should be changed to

In 2015, Pai opposed rate caps on intrastate inmate calls.[43]

Citation 42 is for a 2017 article about an appeals court decision two years after 2015 - Pai's initial opposition was not backed by a court decision, and the history of the case is laid out in subsequent sentences.

10)

In November 2016, the ICS providers won a halt on the unlawful regulations.

should be changed to

In November 2016, the ICS providers won a halt on the regulations.

The ongoing court case was in the process of determining whether such regulations are lawful at that point.

11)

Shortly after his January 23 confirmation as chairman, Pai withdrew support for the FCC case involving GTL and CenturyLink set for February 6, 2017, which had called for establishing FCC jurisdiction over rates set by states.[27][45]

should be changed to

Shortly after his January 23 confirmation as chairman, Pai withdrew support for the FCC case involving GTL and CenturyLink set for February 6, 2017, which had called for establishing FCC jurisdiction over rates set by states, and the court ruled in June that the FCC lacks authority to regulate intrastate calls.[27][42][45]

JohannVII (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I've kept the request open in case of a quick change. Cocohead781 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Request stale: closed the edit request Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 09:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. I see several places on this talk page where users have expressed their concern that the article as a whole is biased in favour of Pai. (Leaving out of it whether he's a douche or not, it really *does* read like a résumé written by a proud mother.) I think there is a pretty clear consensus that the article requires edits like the ones proposed here.

So. I agree with all the above. How do we reach consensus? Is it simply a matter of using a different template? 173.228.112.134 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed. The concerns of others do not justify source-free "corrections". Please see the Request for Comment page for how to build a new consensus.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing weasel words and implicit bias[edit]

I support the changes proposed above. JohannVII is right that these sentences in the current article include POV judgements in Wikipedia’s neutral voice.

The comments from @Cocohead781, Gamebuster19901, and Eggishorn: do not appear to oppose the changes per se, but rightly pointed out that consensus is needed.

Do any other editors have strong views either way on these changes?

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking here; I think many of the proposed edits in this list are legitimate if not preferable to the alternative. It's important to define the use of Pai's opinion. If we clearly delineate, I think we'll bring the article closer to an adequate presentation of a contentious figure. (I do agree the article should include some mention of his views on Net Neutrality, the response of various sitting US Senators and Congresspeople, and his responses on social media, but that's a harder problem to crack).

I recognize may these feel like, as Eggishorn points out, source-free corrections. But it's important to delineate and signal a person's opinions from alternatively sourced information. I also tend to believe that at least a few of the edits are so slight as to not matter. But especially 9, and 10 should be adopted regardless of our views on how readers perceive our edits.

My reactions to the list of proposed edits:
1) agreed: "perception of the dangers"
2) disagreed: "his belief," "'nimble,'" "rather than chills," for being a little too heavy-handed, especially putting quotes around "nimble." If it's not what he said, we need to find a different word. Quotes signal too much that we don't mean. Overall, the appropriate response might sound more like "He discussed his position on FCC regulation in three principles. . ." and then essentially quoting him.
3) agreed in principle: "proposed" doesn't accomplish what you're looking for. Try "which he proposed was a study of" or something similar.
4) agreed. By labeling his opinion clearly as opinion, we don't need the response from the study.
5) strongly agreed. That's just better writing than the original, and (as it turns out) more accurate.
6) indifferent. If we're signalling his opinion, his opinion (as I understand the direct quote that follows) is that a lack of competition has driven prices up. He thinks the prices are high, and we're discussing his position. However, taking it out doesn't materially hurt the article.
7) indifferent. Changing "his" to "a" is too slight a change to have an effect. We're already pointing out it's his written dissent, his opinion, and his words.
8) agreed with caveat: I think certainly cutting much of the section is totally fine, but at least some of the context is useful to qualify Pai's opinion that a lack of competition has driven up prices. The comparison of "six times the rate on the outside" is exactly this useful context. 9) agreed. And well-spotted.
10) agreed. A halt or an injunction or an order isn't a decision. This is an excellent edit and should be adopted regardless.
11) agreed. This is immaterial, even if it's interesting in general.
Rvanarsdale (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this if the changes comply with the usual WP:CCPOL requirements. This is a volatile and high-interest topic so stringent compliance with the usual policies is necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rvanarsdale, Eggishorn, Onceinawhile, Cocohead781, and JohannVII: I just did #10 Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 00:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rvanarsdale, Eggishorn, Onceinawhile, Cocohead781, JohannVII, and Gamebuster19901: Can someone do some of the others, too? Eggishorn, the page you linked, WP:CCPOL specifically calls out Neutral Point of View, which the article at present is laughably in violation of, so I'm not sure what you're asking/warning/complaining about. As to the claim that these are source-free corrections...the original statements are either source-free, or have sources that seem to agree more with the corrections than with the current wording. I really don't understand the push-back here, and given how relevant this page has been in the past few months, it's a crying shame this hasn't been cleaned up earlier.173.228.112.134 (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2017: Change Pai portrait on infobox[edit]

I'm requesting that the portrait image used on Ajit Pai's infobox (line 8) be changed from "File:Ajit V. Pai official photo.jpg" to "File:Ajit V. Pai headshot.jpg". The new image is much more refreshed, is newer, more up-to-date, and is freely available under the U.S. public domain. Samtondiaz (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DRAGON BOOSTER and Samtondiaz: I've reverted the change. Per this webpage and his official biography, the blue background portrait is his official portrait. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: this portrait is also officially published by the FCC, but it is more up to date. The portrait with the blue background was from before he was a commissioner, whereas the 2013 photo shows Ajit Pai in the position he is best known for. Both are official, meaning that the determining factor should be timing and relevance. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2017[edit]

64.130.167.234 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cocohead781 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2017 :replace citation 2 with a link that contains relevant info[edit]

On the sentence "He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012,[1] and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a five-year term.[2]" Citation 2 links to an article discussing set-top boxes, and contains no relevant info on his appointment by Obama, the Senate voting, or the dates he was voted and sworn in on.

This irrelevant citation should be either removed or replaced with a separate citation that compliments the first one. I suggest https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/1084 , as it details the actions taken with dates, along with a link detailing the near-unanimous vote of 91-3.

note: I was having trouble giving the direct link for the vote on the senate.gov website, it keeps breaking the template hence the blank edit request above. If you wish to use that it can be found by clicking the link in the last dated action on the congress.gov link I gave 64.130.167.234 (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems i was mistaken, there is no page detailing the senate vote on senate.gov as it was a voice vote. I still suggest removing citation 2 or replacing it with the link above however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.167.234 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: As unnecessary. Citation is given to prove and verify the preceding or tied content. The citation now in the article really does that. The sources is reliable, I opened it and it's true. Thus, passed verification. So asking it to be changed to your preferred version is unnecessary and not purpose of {{edit request}} –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trump has controlled everything even we cant edit this page[edit]

Mid2008 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is restricted to users with 500+ edits for the time being because a lot of unregistered users were vandalizing the article making it harder for people to make helpful edits. Extended confirmed protection of this article expires on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:10:34 GMT. Not unsurprisingly, when Ajit Pai gave millions of people reason to hate him, there was a wave of edits that ranged from renaming his infobox to "Killer of the Internet," replacing "an American Attorney" with "an asshole," adding footnotes like "He also happens to be a total shithead," and redirecting "Ajit Pai" to "Shill" for almost 30 minutes. As tempting as it is to agree with those edits, for obvious reasons we can't keep them and if we don't stop them from happening it'll be much harder to add new content to the article. You can request an edit if you want, though. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear from the edit page anyway that it's because of disruptive editing and WP:ARBCOM sanctions, not censorship. --Codyorb (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"First Amendment issues" removed[edit]

The following sentences have been removed.

"First Amendment issues Pai highlighted First Amendment issues on the commission, citing them as a significant reason for voting against net neutrality. He called the Open Internet Order's declaration that Internet service providers have no freedom of speech an attempt to weaken the "culture of the First Amendment," and said it was "conceivable" the agency would seek to regulate political speech offered by edge providers such as Fox News or the Drudge Report."

Rationale: Aside from the POV concern being entirely in his favor and a lack of elaboration on why specifically Pai believes net neutrality is a threat to the first amendment, this text should not be included (especially as a standalone subparagraph) as it propagates a complete falsehood. It would be unencyclopedic to include only Pai's claim that net neutrality violates the first amendment as his reason for supporting its repeal, especially without making any mention of how its repeal is what would be detrimental to said amendment as that would legally give ISPs every right to deny or slow access for any reason including but not limited to political lobbying thus removing the freedom expression provided by the internet as a public utility due to its privatization. The reason why I'm not simply adding what I said with sources to this subsection is that it alone is lengthier than his claim yet this subsection is supposed to be about his policy positions more than the consequences of repealing net neutrality.

If you disagree with this removal of content, please explain why it is valuable, accurate, and informative. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with this content, because the way it is written makes it clear that this is Pai's opinion (it is not written in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). His rationale for opposing net neutrality is certainly relevant to his article and should be included. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it does not use Wikipedia's voice, it actually does violate WP:WikiVoice for not meeting the necessary criteria of "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." It would be perfectly fine to simply state the explicit policy position he holds - that Ajit Pai is in favor of repealing net neutrality - but to have a subsection stating that Ajit Pai believes net neutrality will violate the first amendment and censor Fox News is a clear violation of policy because it gives undue weight to a minor aspect, violating WP:PROPORTION and gives an entirely uncontested portrayal to something that is incorrect not as an opinion but rather something that is objectively incorrect, the definition of a False balance. The text presented opinion as fact. It did not say "Pai believes" but simply "Pai highlighted." This violates another policy point of WP:WikiVoice being "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." This paragraph would need to be rewritten entirely to meet policy guidelines. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2017[edit]

CHANGE 2012 TO 2017 (CURRENTLY SAYS HE WAS SWORN-IN IN 2012) Peter M. Grund (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: He was sworn in as a member of the FCC in 2012. He was elevated to the Chair in 2017 but that does not change the original statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2017[edit]

hello yes i like to edit this article may i please edit this article by adding how ajit pai plans to take away net neutrality and how he lost because of either violent protesters and votes, the government finds out hes lying or google, facebook, etc. big companies paind the fcc to keep net neutrality. thank you Imyourhost (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His position on net neutrality seems to be covered; if there's something specific related to that you'd like to alter or add, you'll need to better illustrate your proposed change. The rest of your request is incoherent. Kuru (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2017[edit]

Request: Change "notwithstanding rates as high as $54 per minute" to "notwithstanding rates as high as $14 per minute".

Reason: The current text misrepresents the source that it is citing. The actual text of the source is "In some cases, a typical call costs as much as $14 a minute, resulting in conversations that cost families some $54 a call"

Currently this is citation #42, URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/10/22/calling-a-prison-inmate-can-cost-54-a-pop-the-fcc-thinks-thats-way-too-high/ Ahhwhereami (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Clearly conformed to the given reference. Kuru (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2017[edit]

Add his Hindi name अजित वरदराज पाई he is in Indian Hindi family MBKRSTORED (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be a common practice for Indian American figures. Kuru (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2017[edit]

76.79.208.218 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

un

Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Thank you, Zhangj1079 talk 23:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2017[edit]

Change Barack Obama to Donald Trump DonQ151 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Where in the article would you like to see it changed? Please be more specific. Codyorb (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2017[edit]

108.53.111.64 (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi

 Not done: Hi, it is not clear what changes you are requesting.አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2017[edit]

Please change 2015 to 2014 in the paragraph below. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/technology/fcc-road-map-to-net-neutrality.html

In a 2015 hearing on net neutrality, Pai said that he was committed to a free and open internet and that it was not the FCC's role to determine net neutrality. He testified that "a dispute this fundamental is not for us, five unelected individuals, to decide. Instead, it should be resolved by the people’s elected representatives, those who choose the direction of government, and those whom the American people can hold accountable for that choice.” Jaredjaredjaredjared (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Changed date. Codyorb (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2017[edit]

2001:1970:505F:C900:6DFB:934F:AA3C:ACE5 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Net Nuetrality

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 21:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017[edit]

He killed Net neutrality 020ford020 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- HindWikiConnect 16:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017[edit]

To add to the paragraph concerning Ajit Pai's response video, should there be mention of "Harlem Shake" creator Baauer and his label taking legal action against Pai/the video? Seems like it could fit alongside the Pizzagate and Mark Hamill responses to the video, and many independent sources are covering it:

https://twitter.com/baauer/status/941422446011387904 https://twitter.com/maddecent/status/941467409013129216 (primary source tweets)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16778944/bauer-harlem-shake-net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-video https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/harlem-shake-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai_us_5a33d5e6e4b0ff955ad225e4 http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/365061-harlem-shake-creators-threaten-to-sue-over-fcc-chairmans-anti http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/12/baauer-taking-action-against-ajit-pai-for-harlem-shaking.html (a few news articles)

Something like:

Harlem Shake's creator, Baauer, has stated he will take legal action against Pai alongside his record label for Pai's unsolicited use of the song in his video.[citations]

Masterfireheart (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I chose a Billboard article which actually confirmed with a statement from the artist and The Hill as a second source.አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017[edit]

Remove the names of children from "Personal Life". Luca2valhalla (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per WP:BLPNAME. Marquardtika (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any indication that his kids names have been "intentionally avoided", as WP:BLPNAME requires? It looks like they've been widelyreported - and maybe in other sources, too, I haven't done exhaustive search. But those are reliable, verifiable. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those articles are from before the alleged directed harassment of his children. In light of that and the current sensitive nature of this article I think we should be overcautious at least with the names of his children. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how that could be a concern, but the names of his children remain prominent on his official bio and mentioned in his congressional testimonyBangabandhu (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017[edit]

Please update the following reference:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html FCC target net neutrality]

to:

{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html|title=Trump’s F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules|last=Kang|first=Cecilia|date=February 5, 2017|website=www.nytimes.com|publisher=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=December 18, 2017}}

Thanks! 192.88.255.9 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, those bare references irk me.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2017.[edit]

Can someone please edit the section net neutrality in the United States, and expand on how controversial his decision was? It barely talks about anyone opposing his decision apart from the three celebrities. We can all agree to disagree, But I think that At least some discussion of how many people were against his decision to repeal net neutrality and the "battle for the net" Is important to the article and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4101:30E0:993F:3916:6D50:75CF (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to collect negative criticism of the repeal. For that, I recommend you start a new article at Repeal of net neutrality in the United States. I am certain there are enough reliable sources to support a new article on the events of December 14. However, this is a biography of a living person and as such should focus on the subject.
It is also not exactly clear what changes you are requesting be made to this section. Please draft a paragraph or two of pertinent material you would like included and make a new request for an edit. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:1C2:4101:30E0:993F:3916:6D50:75CF: I actually started the page for you: Repeal of net neutrality in the United States. Happy editing. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is not requesting a collection of "negative criticism of the repeal", its asking for an honest account of how Pai has responded to widespread outrage. That belongs in the article and is currently missing. I'm not sure about the wisdom of a new article on the repeal, especially when the most relevant article Net neutrality in the United States does not have adequate treatment of the topic. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives[edit]

Can someone set up a bot to automatically archive old discussions on this page? It's getting really long and hard to navigate. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 03:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017[edit]

He is a member of the comcast and verizon board of directors 70.20.36.4 (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't. Kuru (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2018[edit]

Mball987 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018[edit]

Copypaste of entire article removed

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to edit "Policy positions" section: minor error spotted[edit]

Hi,

There is a misleading statement at the bottom of the "Policy positions" section of this article. To quote, "As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon.[31]." Reference [31] links directly to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html?smid=pl-share). If you read the content, you will find the following quote: "and he scrapped a proposal to break open the cable box market." That sentence will then link you to a reference regarding the mentioned proposal (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/technology/fcc-cable-box-vote-delayed.html)

The reason for my request is that the "break open the cable box market" article describes a delay in the progression of that plan from 2016, when Tom Wheeler was still head of the FCC. It makes no mention of Ajit Pai and his decision to take the plan out of circulation. In fact, that is something else I think is a bit misleading about the statement on the Wiki page. He has not "scrapped" it, as the New York Times suggests. He has taken the plan out of circulation. While it cannot be voted on, the plan is still open and could be resurrected in the future (probably unlikely given the nature of Pai, but technically correct).

I propose that someone "scrap" the New York Times reference, and replace it with: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/fcc-chairman-pai-takes-wheelers-set-top-box-plan-off-the-table/, which gives a bit more information about the policy of Ajit Pai and not of Tom Wheeler. Further, I propose that someone also change the sentence from "As chairman, Pai scrapped a proposal to open the cable box market to tech companies such as Google and Amazon" to "In 2017, Pai decided to remove the set-top box proposal from circulation, previously set in motion by his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, which would have allowed companies with streaming devices like Google, Roku, and Amazon, to have cable programming available on their devices. This would have lessened the need for a cable set top box that has historically been provided by the cable companies." ... or something like that.

The nature of my request is not partisan, I was simply just reading through this article and decided to check the references for some of the more vague statements such as the one I've mentioned.

Cheers, Redhat pasta manager (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I have rewritten the sentence to improve its accuracy and have added a reference to the Ars Technica article as an additional source. LifeofTau 07:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018[edit]

71.187.154.140 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi i'm an editor for TIME magazine and I thought my help could be useful to your cause

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you may find some useful information here. AntiCedros (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats[edit]

Pai was on Marketplace (radio program) and mentioned the many death threats he has received - this should be addressed comprehensively in the article. I think reporting terrorism threats is not undue weight.

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/06/07/world/Ajit-Pai-FCC-Net-Neutrality

A note to the hysterical people who vandalize Wikipedia and threaten others with harm - perhaps your understanding of the issues is not as full as you believe it to be. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is the embodiment of all that is evil, according to Reddit, so it makes sense that people want him dead. Taric25 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's a what?[edit]

This article is indeed quite a mess, starting with the first line, where Pai is described as a "telecommunications director." Does this refer to him being on a corporate board of directors? Is he the guy in a TV control room who calls camera shots? If not, what, exactly (or even approximately), is a "telecommunications director."

If we can clarify that, maybe the rest of this so-called article will fall into place. (For the record I worked for many years as a broadcast journalist and editor. I have strong views about the FCC Chairman, yes. But I have even stronger views about clarity of writing, objectivity of viewpoint, and logic of organization in Wikipedia articles.) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.73.17 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appointed by whom?[edit]

Pai was appointed by Obama. Why is there a mention of Donald Trump in the sidebar section for his appointment in 2012? Trump was not President until 2017. It may be embarrassing, but Obama is responsible for this guy, not Trump.

Additionally, there is an uncited claim that Mitch McConnell "recommended" Pai to Obama. Last I checked, US Presidents have sole authority for presidential appointee nominations.

Lots of apologists trying to make Pai seem like the GOP's fault when Obama is 100% responsible here... Asaturn (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pai was appointed by the previous administration as a member of commission and approved unanimously; the current administration moved him to the chair position. That seems clear as the article is written. The mention of Trump and Obama in the sidebar correctly aligns with their actions. The cite you're looking for is near "Career" section. It also explains the conventions of the committee appointments. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Kuru (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees[edit]

Way does this article refer to the degree Pai earned "at the University of Chicago Law School" as a "law degree," rather than as a J.D. degree or Juris Doctor degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.242.220 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does. It says so in the body, not in the lead. The "J.D." is unnecessarily specific for the lead's purposes.  White Whirlwind  02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that raises a question: Why does the article need to twice tell us that he has a legal degree from the University of Chicago Law School?73.192.242.220 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.  White Whirlwind  05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ajit_Pai&oldid=1212609349"