Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InfiniteNexus (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 24 April 2024 (→‎Consolidate articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Neutralitytalk 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 This risks introducing content forks, original research, outdated and unbalanced information.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. Neutralitytalk 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  • Using outdated sources that do not mention an article's subject would allow anyone to add old information of their choosing to a new topic regardless of balance and due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  • Which "sources" are "outdated" or "don't mention the article's subject"?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? Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ones that are old and not reporting on PAFACA were removed [1]. I have restored the Axios source because it was easily missed at first, but as you can see, most of the new ones you added that actually mention this latest bill I did not remove them. CurryCity (talk) 10:53, 20 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. Neutralitytalk 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]
  1. "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

  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.
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only restored some of your changes and cannot be held responsible for every edit that happened before then, but clearly it was not in wikivoice in the first place [2] "Critics, however, objected to the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities", so your characterisation is inaccurate. CurryCity (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate articles

There seems to be some confusion going on here. The bill that was passed in the House on March 13 was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which didn't go anywhere. The bill that includes foreign aid that was passed in the House on April 20, passed in the Senate yesterday, and signed by the President today was the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, a separate piece of legislation. We already have Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, which is too long to cover all the details, but Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance was also just created; a merge discussion has been started at Talk:Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance#Merge proposal. I think either Proposed divestment... should be merged into Protecting Americans..., and that article be renamed 21st Century... (for the purpose of retaining history). Alternatively, we could merge both Protecting Americans... and Proposed divestment... into Restrictions on.... Thoughts from other editors are much appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Protecting bill" is notable independelty of "Restrictions", however "Proposed divestment" is unnotable.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: To explain, the bill that Biden signed into law today is the National Security Act, 2024. The House of Representatives amended the RELIEVE Act to include the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act referred to in the National Security Act is a separate legislative entity. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the "Protecting" and "21st Century" acts are both part of the same National Security Act? If so, then let's move this article to National Security Act, 2024 and merge the info you had on the Proposed divestment article. In any case, we shouldn't have so many articles covering the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act's provisions were merged into the National Security Act. The act, as passed by Biden, includes the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The National Security Act also includes the provisions for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It would be improper to move this page given that. I have created National Security Act, 2024 to cover the act's provisions, as it appears that such a substantial expenditure will have some impact on the war in Ukraine. I support merging this article into that one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the National Security Act includes both the Protecting Americans and 21st Century provisions, then I don't see why they can't co-exist on the same article about the foreign aid. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop creating articles until we sort this out Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I've tried that one before. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal that the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is renamed to whatever the name of the overarching legislation is (I am still a little confused on that), while Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance becomes a redirect (probably to the aforementioned article, but possibly to Restrictions on TikTok in the United States), with any relevant information merged into appropriate articles. Should a request be opened? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please don't. We can resolve this speedily through normal discussion; RM takes forever and only does a disservice to readers. If there are concerns after we sort this out, then an RM may be held, but I think there wouldn't be any opposition to fixing the current state of mess (which I too am confused with). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I think I agree with that. –Gluonz talk contribs 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this article stays where it is, it's clearly notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, which possible fix is your current preference? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity:@Neutrality: these two have been significant contributors Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking we should move this article to whatever the final/overarching legislation is called, and then merge the contents of the other article(s) here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great now just the probelm of what that is? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is National Security Act, 2024, I think the article with more history (the one this talk is for) should be kept, and that it should be adapted with relevant information, such as from the article currently at National Security Act, 2024, which itself would be merged into the article. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be renamed, its got the most history wise. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that the National Security Act, 2024 is independently notable for its appropriations to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The TikTok portion of the bill is not the entirety of its scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we would rename the article and include information about those, while keeping the article that has the most history. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we're back to my original alt proposal to reverse-merge the "Proposed divestment" article into here, and then move it to a generic title like Proposed TikTok ban in the United States (I think calling this a "proposal ... by ByteDance" is ambiguous). Even if it's not exactly a ban, it effectively is, and it's already demonstrably the common name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(This is under my assumption that "Protecting" and "21st Century" are two completely separated entities. If this isn't accurate, please correct me.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the best course is to merge/redirecting this article on previous proposals to the enacted version. It can be discussed in a "legislative history" section. Neutralitytalk 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protecting_Americans_from_Foreign_Adversary_Controlled_Applications_Act&oldid=1220605228"