Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:02, 19 April 2024

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

TikTok

This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles

A fact from Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that TikTok rallied its users to protest a bill that would potentially ban the app?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 23:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that TikTok rallied its users to protest a bill that would potentially ban the app? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/tiktok-phone-calls-congress.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KASN
- Comment: I'm sure there are potantial alt hooks but I don't want to miss the deadline so I'll add them when I think of them

Created by OlifanofmrTennant (talk) and ElijahPepe (talk). Nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (talk) at 05:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC). Note: at the time of this nomination, DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode. All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior nominations during this time will require two QPQs for every article nominated. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Less than 20 noms so only 1 qpq needed. Earwig's showing a rather high overlap for some of the sources, but most of that is the bill's title, quotes, or people's names, so no concerns about plagiarism. AryKun (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to status quo

Neutrality, please explain your drastic changes first before pushing them into the article. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the edit summaries, your edits have massively removed well-sourced material and inserted content not directly supported by the cited source. Your seemingly random removals of text have resulted in quotes not supported by the citation used. Not cool. Neutrality^talk 22:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained in my edit summary, my concern is that you are using sources that predate coverage of this article's subject. This risks introducing content forks, original research, outdated and unbalanced information. I have summarised the background using only sources that are more recent and relevant to this PAFACA. CurryCity (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia. Our policies aren't buzzwords to be invoked without explanation. Neutrality^talk 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using outdated sources that do not mention an article's subject would allow anyone to add old information of their choosing to a new topic regardless of balance and due weight. CurryCity (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which "sources" are "outdated" or "don't mention the article's subject"? What's "old information"? I have no clue what you are going on about. Is this some sort of strange dilatory tactic? Neutrality^talk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual concerns

List some of the other concerns you have because it is not easy to tell from edit summaries. CurryCity (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences under "National security concerns": after your random removals, there are two quotes that do not appear in the cited source. Under "Response": you shoved in loaded, flagrantly POV language ("criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities") that is not supported by the cited source. If you edit, you need to have a firm grasp of the English language, and a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies, including the really basic stuff: everything needs to be directly supported by a cited source and we follow the neutral point of view. Neutrality^talk 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you politely to list the sentences and am asking you again to do so in a way that is easier to review. CurryCity (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities"^[1] What are your concerns and suggestion?

References

^ "US pro-Israel Jewish group backs ban on 'antisemitic' TikTok". The New Arab. 13 March 2024. Critics say supporters of Israel are weaponising antisemitism to defend Israel's war on Gaza and the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices, including on social media. TikTok has been an important tool for activists and users to expose the genocide in Gaza and condemn Israel's atrocities.

OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text, which you shoved into the article at least twice, was not supported by the cited source? And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to post hoc support it? And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is undue weight, and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. And, I'm not going to play whac-a-mole, statement-by-statement, like this. Just stop and familiarize yourself with core Wiki policies. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "US pro-Israel Jewish group backs ban on 'antisemitic' TikTok". The New Arab. 13 March 2024. Critics say supporters of Israel are weaponising antisemitism to defend Israel's war on Gaza and the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices, including on social media. TikTok has been an important tool for activists and users to expose the genocide in Gaza and condemn Israel's atrocities.

[1]

Revision as of 23:01, 19 April 2024 edit Neutrality (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 164,515 edits →‎Changes to status quo: painfully obvious ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:02, 19 April 2024 edit undo Neutrality (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 164,515 edits add, copy edit Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:
	{{reflist-talk}}		{{reflist-talk}}

	:::* OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text was no supported by the cited source? And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to ''post hoc'' ~~justify~~ ~~what~~ ~~you previously shoved into the article. I'm not going to play [[whac-a-mole]], statement-by-statement.~~ And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]], and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. [[User:Neutrality\|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality\|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)		:::* OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text, which you shoved into the article at least twice, was not supported by the cited source? And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to ''post hoc'' support it? And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is [[WP:UNDUE\|undue weight]], and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. And, I'm not going to play [[whac-a-mole]], statement-by-statement, like this. Just stop and familiarize yourself with core Wiki policies. [[User:Neutrality\|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality\|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)