Talk:PROTECT IP Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Schmidt's Comments on China

Schmidt's main point is that there may be free-speech violations. He says we've seen similar actions and their consequences in China. In my opinion the lead section should be more general about his criticisms, and in the criticisms sections we can explore them in their full glory. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 06:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Passed by senate, hold by Wyden

It may be noted that the PROTECT IP act was passed by the US Senate, but Rep. Ron Wyden has put a hold on the bill Source: http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=33a39533-1b25-437b-ad1d-9039b44cde92 Ssa3512 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the intro paragraph to reflect this. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank god for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.204.97 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Ssa3512. The Senate has not acted on it. The Senate Judiciary Committee gave it a unanimous positive report, but the Senate as a whole has not acted on it. The "hold" means that Rep. Wyden has announced his intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed with expedited consideration of the bill. If the bill had been passed by the Senate, it would be too late for a "hold." NCdave (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Google.hk?

How would this act affect http://www.google.com.hk/ ? Would Americans still be free to access that site and get uncensored search results? Wnt (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Workarounds"

Can someone please comment on the issues of original research, reliable links, weasle words and advertising that have been discussed in this section.Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The following content has been inserted (and re-inserted) into the article. It is cited to primary sources and blogs, and contains original research. Does anyone have some high quality sourcing covering this topic that we could use for similar content?

In moves that exemplify the technical impossibility of making this idea work BlockAid.me has already set up an alternative DNS service. Additionally a browser plugin called MAFIAAFire Redirector has been created that redirects visitors to an alternative domain in the case of a sites' primary domain being seized. Seized sites can either pre register their alternative domains or add them after the fact.

Xenophrenic (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, there is [1] but it's not a particularly credible source. shame. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how this is original research. It doesn't synthesize or speak beyond the sources but just reports what they say. Also why are these sources unsuitable?Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Max: No, that is one of the non-RS already cited in the content under discussion. I was looking for sources that meet Wikipedia criteria for use.

@Morgan: Original research, such as implying a "technical impossibility" when such isn't implicit in cited sources - just one of several examples. As for just reporting what sources say, how about we start with secondary sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and discuss the relevance and significance of "workarounds", as Wikipedia requires. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The text doesn't imply a technical impossibility, it states the fact that all the measures sought under this act are easily preventable by technical means. This is not my own opinion but is stated in the sources cited e.g. techdirt "technologists are quickly designing systems to route around such hamfisted attempts to censor websites". All of the sources I have cited reporting this are reputable sites. The techdirt article clearly discusses the relevance and significance of these workarounds, "continuing this kind of policy (and extending it with PROTECT IP) will lead to more workarounds that inevitably will fracture key pieces of the internet and make it significantly less secure". Please specify which sites you have a problem with and why? Also please explain the other "several examples" you claim I have included. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

These references are fairly obscure and technical ... exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should encourage. There's no plausible reason to leave out this information, which gives a great deal of insight into the workings of this law. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Established, reliable sites are preferred - required, in fact. Blogs, fanzines and technical discussion sites are not (although in rare cases, they can be cited as sources for 'opinion'). As for technical whitepapers, they are primary sources and should not be used as the only source for Wikipedia content. As I am sure you know, raw data can often be interpreted in more than one way, and we should leave that interpretation ('insight', if you prefer) to reliable sources that cover the subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources are still reliable sources. Under Wikipedia guidelines you just have to be careful not to read things into them. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say primary sources weren't reliable. I said we shouldn't rely on them as the only source for our content. Reliable secondary sources can better summarize and convey the material. It would be very easy for me to, for example, present the finding of that whitepaper as being in support of the PROTECT IP Act, and even quote it:

In conclusion: we strongly believe that the goals of PROTECT IP are compelling, and that intellectual property laws should be enforced against those who violate them. But as discussed in this paper, the mandated DNS filtering provisions found in the PROTECT IP Act raise very serious security and technical concerns. We believe that the goals of PROTECT IP can be accomplished without reducing DNS security and stability, through strategies such as better international cooperation on prosecutions and the other remedies contained in PROTECT IP other than DNS-related provisions. We urge Congress to reject the DNS filtering portions of the Act.

Sounds like they strongly support all but a small portion of the act, no? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the Workarounds section is to explain how the proposed law has already created a small industry to guide people around it. The organization of this article into "support" and "oppose" is becoming increasingly strained - beyond naming main supporters and opponents, the rest should be organized differently, in terms of what is affected. In any case, it is certainly no distortion to reference a primary source in support of these other secondary sources I've found saying these things, like Wired and CNet, nor to describe its headline conclusion. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Workarounds" section, with its very own header, appears to be to advertize available workarounds. If, as you assert, a whole industry has sprung up around guiding people past this proposed law, then finding a reliable source conveying that such an industry has indeed sprung up shouldn't be hard to find. Instead, we've created our own list of workaround applications, cited to tech blogs (not Wikipedia-compliant reliable sites ... Techdirt, for instance, is reader-composed) usually containing just opinions of people in the industry. CNet and Wired should be passable sources for assertion of fact on industry news, as long as they aren't obviously just opinion pieces. Have you seen this article, for instance?

I have to agree with you about the present sections becoming bloated. I'd recommend briefly outlining supporters and opponents in one section, and breaking off the competing arguments of those supporters and opponents into other sections. From what I've read, the arguments for stronger intellectual property protections and enforcement tools are opposed by two camps: the civil liberties folks worried about freedom of speech issues, and the techie folks worried about security issues and access restriction issues. Right now they are all clumped together. What are your thoughts on this? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you agree that these things should be broken off, why did you eliminate the Workarounds section heading? [2] Wnt (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The criticism about the DNS filtering provisions in the bill (that it would spawn 'workarounds') is just that ... a criticism. It's in the criticism section. One particular complaint about the act doesn't deserve its own heading. Undue weight. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue it should get it's own section as presently we have two opposing views about what might happen if the act passes, but the presence of workarounds is evidence of what actually has happened in response, even before the act has passed (or not). This is super relevant especially in light of the fact that the Cotton said it was unlikely to happen. So essentially it's two views and a section of evidence. Works for me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. What source would you suggest we cite as conveying this "evidence" in relation to the proposed act? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved some links as they were not saying what they were claimed to say.

This link - http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ - was cited in a sentence that said that engineers has said that the claims were without merit, hoever the only person on this page saying this was Richard Cotton executive vice president and general counsel at NBC Universal, who is not an engineer. Most of the article is actually about people who don't support the bill so I have moved it to a relevant place.

These three links - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/protect-ip-act/, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/protect-ip-act/ and http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/ were also being used to cite the without merit sentence whereas they are in fact almost completely about people citing concerns about the act.

The Geroge Ou source appears to be self published on Scribe, so isn't a reputable source and shoudl probably be removed. He has no institutional or other affiliation that I can find , nor have I been able to find any info on who he is. The web page cited near this paper is just him citing his paper so it's probably redundant as we have already cited the paper. What do you all think?Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The George Ou opinion is sourced to the Daily Caller, a reputable source, and his tech paper is sourced to himself, obviously, just as the other tech paper is sourced to, and self-published by, those other engineers. I'm faily certain we can trust that the link provided in the Daily Caller does indeed link to a document produced by Ou. He's a senior analyst with Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, so I assume he's allowed to have a technical opinion like the others. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I have more of a problem with the changes you made in that edit that you didn't outline above. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits as the section you had put back contains weasle words and inaccuracies in citing as mentioned in my previous comment here. Instead of a vague comment that you didin't like my edit please address specific things.Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'll conclude that rather than being intentionally obtuse you simply overlooked what I wrote above regarding your citing of unreliable sources, and your inclusion of original research and what appears to me to be advertizing. It would be appreciated if you could address and resolve these concerns before reinstating the contested and inappropriate content. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to assume good faith regarding your edits. Myself and user Wnt clearly adressed your claims of original research and the validity of references. I likewise clearly set out how those links which you have reinserted do not say what they are cited to say. You have returned material that is erroneous and contains weasle words when accurate correctly cited material was already in the article. Clearly we are at an impass and accordingly I have added a RFC tag to this section. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting an RfC; additional eyes on this page would be welcome. You are incorrect in your assertion that you have "clearly addressed" my concerns, as evidenced by my continued insistence that you address them. You continue to insert links to sites that make no mention of the PROTECT IP Act and simply advertize software add-ons; you continue to cite advocacy blogs for assertion of fact, and you have continued attempts to add undue weight to already covered content by, for example, replicating it under its own header. I've seen synthesized assertions and conclusions (see "technical impossibility" and "created a small industry" above) that are not supported by reliable secondary sources conveying the same thing. It's just a simple matter of getting it right. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm mystified here. I thought we had agreement that we should have a separate section describing the workarounds/effects/reaction to the law, rather than trying to lump everything into support or oppose. I don't see what would be contentious about detailing the products and services involved, including links to the entities themselves for purposes of identification and further research. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my expressed agreement was unclear. Here is what I said above:

I have to agree with you about the present sections becoming bloated. I'd recommend briefly outlining supporters and opponents in one section, and breaking off the competing arguments of those supporters and opponents into other sections. From what I've read, the arguments for stronger intellectual property protections and enforcement tools are opposed by two camps: the civil liberties folks worried about freedom of speech issues, and the techie folks worried about security issues and access restriction issues.

As you can see, my agreement with you was that the two old sections were bloated, and I suggested a fix. I have since implemented that fix by putting the pro/con arguments about technical issues into a separate section, and putting the pro/con civil liberties issues into a separate section. I in no way implied agreement to creating a section devoted to advertizing, describing or promoting various software add-ons or browser plug-ins in our article about the PROTECT IP Act.

We have reliable sources already cited in our article that convey the technical concern that the DNS filtering provisions of the bill would prove ineffectual to any internet user armed with a "workaround" add-on. We also have reliably sourced competing content suggesting that circumvention of the DNS filtering will not become very widespread, or that the availability of such add-ons doesn't mean that filtering shouldn't be implemented. With both sides of that "technical issue" thusly explained, I fail to see why you are pressing to also add a shopping menu of add-ons, highlighted by having its very own subject header, complete with direct links to "Download now!" product website pages. How does this further inform our readers about the PROTECT IP Act? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I run into this here from time to time - I'm coming from a scientific background, so I value primary sources very highly. For example, in a recent article edit about a threat by Anonymous [3] I felt that it was vital to link directly to the video, not just to sources talking about the video, because I just don't think it's right to talk about something in some broad way but deny the reader an easy path to go and see directly for himself. That's not advertising any more than including a link to IBM in the article about IBM is advertising. I likewise value primary political sources, i.e. coverage of what one side or the other says about an issue, because a news report describing someone's position just doesn't give the same perspective. We should always be shooting live ammo, because whatever the issue, no one on the internet is ever more than five minutes away from the war. Wnt (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't disagree that primary sources have their value. And no one here is trying to "deny the reader an easy path to go and see directly for himself". I'm going to repeat myself yet again (and again, and again if necessary); as I said above: I said we shouldn't rely on them as the only source for our content. As you will note, our article cites secondary sources describing the proposed bill, and it also cites a primary source of the actual bill - word for word. As you will note, our article cites secondary sources describing the numerous critics and supporters of the bill, and it also cites primary sources of lists, letters and whitepapers from those folks. So you see, no one is purging "primary sources" from our article because they are primary sources - that's rather a straw man assertion. Your IBM analogy also doesn't apply here; I doubt anyone would object to linking to IBM product sites in a Wikipedia article on IBM, and I doubt anyone would object to linking to a BlockAid site in a Wikipedia article about BlockAid. Now try slipping a link to an Apple sales website into that IBM article and see what happens.

The Mozilla add-on blurb, while I have temporarily left it in the present article, is on tenuous ground as well. Why? For a couple reasons: (1) That add-on existed before the PROTECT IP Act existed, and the government has been "siezing" domains prior to the bill proposal; (2) the only actual reliable secondary source I could find about that content doesn't mention the PROTECT IP Act, and in fact, was written before the bill was introduced -- so our tying it to the subject of this article can be criticized as WP:Synthesis. I left it in with the hopes that I'd be able to find appropriate reliable sources conveying that the Mozilla plug-in is a prime example of the concerns expressed by Kaminski, et al. I'm still looking. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits (October)

Couldn't find the Protect IP Act mentioned at all in several of the non-RS sources cited, so they were removed. I'll see if I can find some better references. Since there doesn't seem to be any objection to reworking the bloated praise & criticism sections, I'll have a go at it. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've split off the issues surrounding the legislation into "Technical" (DNS filtering circumvention, Naming conventions, etc.) and "Civil liberties" (i.e.; freedom of speech, etc.) sections. It appears a third section may be warranted: "Business concerns". I'm seeing a lot of concern raised in sources about how this legislation may "stifle innovation" and place an undue burden on legitimate business. Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Relation to COICA

Is this bill a direct descendant of COICA, or merely in the same spirit? Wasn't sure how to phrase the relation? Maximilianklein (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not compared them line by line but as I recall the EFF said they were pretty similar 07:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

Listing all supporters and oppsotion.

I've reverted the large list of all the official supporters of the bill. Not only does it make for a too-long sentence, but it's not important to mention the most minor ones, they can be found in the references. If it feels like to balance the neutral point of view we have to mention equal amounts of supporters on both sides then let's at least come to a conclusion that doesn't involve an exhaustive list of over 10 groups in a sentence. Perhaps a list is better for this if we want to make an all encompassing view. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands the article, and especially this section, reads like a sales brochure Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone Added netflix

Hello, I can't find netflix in the link that was given. Someone added them without the prior citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullslash (talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that Netflix is not in the reference. It was for this reason that I removed reference to Netflix and other companies that are likewise not mentioned. Unfortunately it has been put back in. I suggest waiting to see the results of the rfc on this issue. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "this issue" isn't addressed by the above RfC. Netflix was added to the list of supporters with this edit. I don't know if Netflix was part of the coalition when the editor added it (the other names he added are indeed on the list), but you are correct that it doesn't appear in the sources presently, so I removed it. I also added citations to the list of 170 supporters, as well as to the newer expanded list of 350+ supporters that accompanied the letters sent to Congress in support of the legislation. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic the explanatory burden here is yours as I removed Netflix and some other companies that are not mentioned in that source in my edit of 15:08, October 29, 2011 and you replaced them in your edit of 05:16, October 30, 2011. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see those time-stamps, but then we are in different time zones, so perhaps they display differently for you. I believe you are probably referring to what is commonly known as a revert via the (Undo) function. "Some other companies" is a little vague - can you please describe each of them here? "That source", that you mentioned, is actually multiple sources; immediately evident if you take the time to look at the edit history of that section on supporters. There is the MPAA source, as well as multiple Chamber of Commerce sources, and secondary sources such as the Politico article on the expanding supporter list. "Netflix" has been removed pending sourcing, so what "explanation", exactly, were you seeking now? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary is over-broad on both sides

"The bill is supported by a wide range of business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy. It is opposed by numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions."

It's supported by groups who think they are losing money to piracy, and opposed by the internet industry and by people interested in civil liberties. To put it bluntly. There's probably a more politically correct way to phrase it, but this is in the lead and should get to the nitty-gritty. Elinruby (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable observation; would you have any reliable sources in mind that sum up the opposing sides of the issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception

the two subsections help, but should both be broken into paragraphs for readability. And, in my opinion, expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Specifics? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a history template

that could be used to show that the same bill keeps being reintroduced. A list of recording industry executives now at DoJ might also be instructive, if I recall my prior research on this. Also campaign contributions, especially for Leahy. I hope these thoughts help. I am too tired to do any actual writing just now but will try to come back with some sources. Maybe conference papers would work as sources, hmm? Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You've mostly lost me there, so I'll wait to read the sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure -- I have a published opinion on this topic

I have written an editorial on this topic, which is why I am calling this a disclosure. It is my understanding that this does not bar me from participating in edits on the topic as long as I "play nice" and acknowledge that people are entitled to disagree with me.

I question whether the site where the editorial appears would count as a reliable source -- it's small and geared to web developers not network people -- and I am probably not the person to decide that. But I am not proposing it as a source. There are better sources out there imho and also, I cite some blogs that seem to have been rejected as non-RS. But some of my *other* sources may be of interest, especially the New York Times (a reliable source surely?). At a minimum it may be a readable explanation for anyone who does not understand what the fuss is about.

http://www.fusionauthority.com/news/4821-the-united-states-government-seizes-84-000-sites-by-mistake.htm Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits (November)

Ok, let's take this one edit at a time shall we?

1. Today I changed "some engineers" to specify the names of the actual engineers.

• 5 internet researchers, as specified in the cited sources. Couldn't find "DNS experts" in any of the cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2.I also changed "other engineers and proponents of the bill", to specify that this is referring to George Ou and Richard Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel at NBC Universal.

• But it isn't. It is also referring to others. Like Bainwol of the RIAA, or Cleary & O'Leary of the IFTA and MPAA, and Ghrist of Rosetta Stone, or Atkinson of ITIF... I left the more inclusive wording in. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

3.I am dubious about the reference for Cotton's remarks, as, although his remark is in this article, "http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/" the entire thrust of the article, which is entitled "Engineers: PROTECT IP Act would break DNS", is making the opposite point. In order to balance this I have included one quote from one of the two engineers cited in the article.

• You didn't actually "include", but rather "replace". I corrected that. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

4.I moved this ref "http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/protect-ip-act/" from the sentence where it is being used to cite the "groundless and without merit" comment as there is nothing in this article that says that. Rather I have used it to cite a quote by the paper's authors which I have put in place of the uncited quote "break the internet". While moving it I corrected the URL to "http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/" as the tag that was there is actually a link to a list of articles rather than to a single article.

• Thanks for correcting the link. I left it, however, at the end of the sentence that is cited to it. And the "break the Internet" phrase is indeed cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

5.I added a citation required tag after this sentence "According to Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always received the criticism that blocking domains would fracture the Domain Name System (DNS)".

• If you'll continue to read for one more sentence, you'll find the citation you're looking for. I have removed the CN tag. I think that first sentence can be worded a little more clearly, but the source does support it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

6.I moved the link "http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/" from where it was being used to cite the without merit sentence as it actually says the opposite. I placed it in the sentence citing the whitepaper to which it actually refers.

• The "without merit" sentence is also the "raises technical concerns" sentence -- same sentence, hence the citation at the end of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

7.I removed this link "http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=1" being used to cite the without merit statement as it is actually a selection of letters to the editor of the NYT and contains an equal number of pro and con letters. Therefore it would be disingenuous to use it to cite the without merit remark without also mentioning the opposing views of the other half of the letters.

• Again, you overlook the fact that the same single sentence expresses both sides. Here, let me copy the sentence for you as it stands right now: Five internet researchers, Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson and Paul Vixie have issued a whitepaper suggesting that the DNS filtering provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit. In fact, one of those letters directly addresses the concerns raised by the previously mentioned 5 engineers. I hope that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has any problems with any portions of this edit please address them specifically.Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that your edit actually changed several more things without explanation here; the edit didn't make changes quite as described above; and it undid reference formatting, punctuation, and other non-controversial edits without explanation. As such, I have reverted that edit. I'll take your above list of 7 concerns and see if I can properly implement or address them. Let me know what you think. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit my posts to this talk page. I numbered the issues so you could reference them clearly.

1. This is like saying Jimmy Hendrix is not an expert on guitar. Paul Vixie wrote BIND, DNS expert check. Dan Kaminsky is renowned for his work on DNS cache poisoning, DNS expert, check. Steve Crocker is the chair of ICANN, DNS expert, check. David Dagon is the author of many papers about DNS - see http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/d/Dagon:David.html, DNS expert, check. Danny McPherson is cheif secuirty officer for Verisign, DNS expert, check. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

2."other engineers" has one reference next to it which is to George Ou's paper. In that paper he mentions none of the people you mention.

3. I did include. There was only reference to Cotton's comments. I added Kaminsky's comments. This is include. Replace would be if I took something out. I took nothing out.

4. "break the internet" had no citation next to it. Direct quotes should have quotations immediately adjacent to them. The nearest citation is Ou's paper, where he uses in quotations marks in his paper but does not cite it. Ou uses it in a sentence where he cites Crocker, Dagon et al.'s paper. However the only place this phrase appears in that paper is when Crocker, Dagon et al. cite a blog post on the Innovation Policy Blog entitles "No, COICA Will Not Break the Internet" see - http://www.innovationpolicy.org/no-coica-will-not-break-the-internet. This quote should therefore be removed. I have replaced it with a quote which is directly cited and removed that citation from the "groundless and without merit" sentence as it contains no reference to such a position.

5. There is presently no citation in the first sentence. It makes a claim that requires a citation. Therefore a citation required tag is appropriate.

6. Actually it was a completely different sentence in my edit. In fact a completly different paragraph. The former is in the "experts including" paragraph and the latter is in the "Richard Cotton" paragraph. You are referencing it as it was before I edited it. That reference does not support the without merit claim. At all.

7. Ditto my comments on 6.

The only other things I edit were minor edits to correct a tag error. Unless you specify exactly what you refer to I can't address it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said Jimmy Hendrix wasn't an expert on guitar; I said the references we're using don't call him an expert on guitar. Simply provide a reference, or alternatively, we can use the present wording which is in two of the references we cite. You are correct that Ou's paper doesn't mention other people, and I didn't say it did. You replaced "break the Internet" with a quote from the Wired article (which itself was quoting their whitepaper); you didn't simply "include" the quote, because you took something out. I've again returned sourced content, and I have also removed your citation needed tag because the citation is already there (see the immediately following sentence). I'm fairly certain that you do not need to place the same citation after each successive sentence from that cited source. Would you like me to quote policy to that effect? As for your items 6 & 7 - I agree with you: the problem didn't exist until you edited it. It's fixed now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is there is no need to cite that these guys are experts. It is as obvious as that Hendrix is an expert on guitar. Clearly you are living in a different universe to me as your comments just don't match what you do, or the reality tunnel I am currently experiencing. I suggest we do nothing until we get some more editors involved in this article.Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting for input from others on that particular section. However, I was in the process of adding other concerns (about stifling innovation and placing undue burden on Business), as well as adding additional critics and opponents (such as 100+ law professors that signed a letter, etc.) ... do you have any objection to that? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with that becasue you don't do what you say you do. e.g. the last two edits. I suggest no editing at all until this dispute can be resolved.Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you'll look a little more carefully, you will find I do exactly as I say. But I'll hold off on further edits to the article for now; I'll make the edits in a separate sandbox area for now, and transfer them over after we hash out the present issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, nine colons, how to resist jumping in? First of all, yes, those engineers are DNS experts. Are you really looking for references on that? I mean, Paul Vixie wrote BIND. You don't get much more expert that that. But how to explain that without going into a long detour through the mechanics of the internet? Second, this proposal *would* break the internet, which relies heavily on DNS to direct users who type for example occupywallst.org to the page that is registered with that name. If you start mucking with the DNS tables to redirect users to for instance notreallyoccupywallst.org, then not only do you create a potential for government misinformation such as we see in China, you run into the question of how the servers will handle conflicting updates. But if the technical documentation is not considered acceptable, and neither are technical blogs -- the only people covering this, last I looked -- then what pray tell would be considered acceptable? Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Elinruby. Yes, we are really looking for reliably referenced descriptions of the engineers for use in our article. And yes, many of those engineers have expressed concerns that parts of the proposed bill would "break" the functionality of the Internet -- but Morgan Leigh appears to have been requesting additional sources for that. Reliable sources for technical information specific to the internet include those such as CNET and Wired, as well as the Tech Sections of major news publications. We've had some attempts to cite blogs and advocacy sites (without the required established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy) for assertions of fact in our article in the past. It isn't hard to locate sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS policy on this subject matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Giggle. OK. It's not enough that he's on the board of ARIN? ISC? that he *wrote* the protocol in question? Um. The problem I am having is that a lot of important tech discussion actually does take place in blogs, and apparently we don't believe the internet specs either :) Maybe the exceptions for experts' blogs should apply here. But I'll give it some thought. Somebody in the mainstream media may have tackled this by now. How do you feel about Ars Technica? That's pretty much an online publication. Maybe Wired? Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your input Elinruby. Clarification. 'We' are not looking for references that these guys are DNS experts. I have stated that it is so obvious that it doesnt require a reference but Xenophrenic argues otherwise. As Xenophrenic and I have agreed to not edit this article until there is some input from other users I will not be making any edits on this topic, but rather allowing others to do so. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

well, I am trying for consensus here, and am kinda used to talking to people who have no idea why this is a problem. The good news is that the mainstream media seems to be waking up. There actually seem to be quite a few sources that no wikipedian could quarrel with -- not the case a few months ago. But getting back to Kaminski et al - if we have to list credentials, it's going to bog the readability down something fierce. A callout-type box maybe? Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Morgan is correct: By "We", I meant we, as a Wikipedia community, are looking for proper references to the credentials of those engineers. I did not mean Morgan, whom, as indicated above, doesn't see the need for proper references. Adding a proper reference to support whatever description is used won't change the readability one bit; the reader will simply see a little number enclosed in brackets at the end of the sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the wikilinks that are there then? Maybe I am hearing you wrong, but since there is a link to Paul Vixie's page, and you still question that he is a DNS expert, it sounds like you want proof that his bio constitutes expertise. That's a bit unusual imho.Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

More on my talk page ;) I am going to try again in a sec tho. I do find it interesting that he lost interest when I stopped editing and is suddenly back now that I have announced an intention to resume. But hey, assuming good faith here, perhaps he's in my time zone ;) Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Who has lost interest? You tagged the article with an "In Use" tag, and I complied. You find that interesting ... cool.  :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Content section

all the quotes from the bill make the section hard to read, not to mention primary sources or anything, and several of the assertions in this section have been authoritatively questioned. The secondary sources are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see only a few quotes, appropriately used - and they appear to accurately convey the content (even if some of that content is "authoritatively questioned"). Wikipedia-compliant reliable sources are always desired; have any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

aren't these what you call primary sources? I'm not saying remove the quotes, they are fine for some of the discussion of the bill's effect, but imho analysis in secondary sources is important too. The quotes from either type of the source should not be *most* of the paragraph. And sure, that's not a constructive suggestion. But maybe refining the issue helps a bit. I may be able to help in a bit if nobody else takes this suggestion on. Not tonight tho.Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing additional reliable secondary sources. Have any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of the first sentence of technical concerns section

Actually, the proposed measures don't block anyone, that's part of the problem, except of course the technically naive and possibly law-abiding. Those sites are still accessible by ip address. Most likely the proposed measures therefore would not prevent infringement either. I also added a quote from a CNET article, which I've now decided is in the wrong place. I'll move it in a minute, but I want to keep my changes to small chunks, so they can be discussed if that seems like a good idea. I also put a cn tag after opposing engineer -- If I have to find documentation that the people who run this system are experts in it, then you gotta document the opposing guy too ;) Not saying he's not competent, but I have never heard of him and what he says sounds fishy to me. Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very true - door locks don't stop determined thieves, but gosh darn it if we don't still put them on our houses, cars, etc. RE: Lofgren's criticism about the SOPAct ... that's a different act (and different article). Be careful there, it's easy to confuse the 3 (or more) similar pieces of legislation. As for the engineer that you tagged with a "cn", I noticed that you have removed a cited source from that sentence. I replaced that source, and removed the CN tag. You only need to "find documentation" that the engineers are "experts" in a particular field if you plan on addressing them as such in this article. Your re-written first sentence, while it may be accurate, is in no way supported by the source to which it is cited. So that change has been reverted as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand the request for comment. Please see section below about reverting changes that are in progress. The reference was there when I came to the section, and did not support the sentence that I edited either, and to which you have reverted. Why is that better? One thing at a time, dude. The reference is a law site and has things to say about the the constitutional issues. Yes, it belongs elsewhere. I would have moved it by now if I weren't so busy dealing with ankle biters. As for the sentence, it deals with serious concerns (breaking the internet) in an offhand way, as though this were just some fevered figment of Paul Vixie's imagination Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is encouraging that you are finally "starting to understand". All Wikipedia articles are forever works in progress, so expect changes at any time. Welcome to Wikipedia. It appears that you have now realized the benefit of accompanying your content additions with proper citations to the reliable sources from which they are derived; that should certainly make your editing experience more productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I cite, dude. You revert cited text and text that is minutes old. Don't patronize me. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"I Cite" ≠ "content additions with proper citations to the reliable sources from which they are derived". Sir. "Patronize", kiddo? Explain. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I am trying to get along here and I expect the same. I am making many small changes and documenting as I go primarily for your benefit, even though I feel that some of your requests are unreasonable. So ya -- I was coming in to put a reference in. I said so in comments.

I will now tag this as being worked on which means BACK OFF and give me a chance. Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on your toes. My apologies. However, if you can't get the simple name of a Wikipedia editor correct, why should we expect that you will apply reasonable care with your edits to a Wikipedia article? Please do indicate when it is safe to correct any additions you are presently making. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WELL...I just typed out a comment to the effect that I only had about another hour, but I lost that text because you caused an edit conflict. But OK. We're in talk :) So I'm typing it again, and also (again): What's your reason for reverting the sentence about the name change? The reference provided backed it up just fine. I grant you that Public Knowledge is not the best reference for the DNS effects, but I was trying to be incrementalist by leaving it where I found it and moving it in a separate step. It's a decent reference, just not the best for DNS edits. Or is your objection something else? Oh and sorry bout the name, was mad and didn't double-check. That was an hour of my life that your reversion wasted, which I will never get back ;) Elinruby (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in there about "government edits", no mention of root servers, and the "percieved" qualifier appears to be your own, instead of conveying the author's concern that some targeted domains might not actually be "dedicated to infringing activities". (I hope I'm discussing the correct sentence here...) I've listed a couple other concerns above, under the sections you set up for those issues. As for citing to PublicKnowledge, it isn't a reliable source for "assertion of fact", but it can be cited as a source of opinion, if that opinion is attributed (as it is now, to Sherwin Siy). Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's cite someone who *is* an expert, hmm? Have at it. I await your edits, since you seem determined to undo mine. Take the 'in use' tag off when you are done. Hasta manana.

Citing experts is fine; what source(s) would you suggest we use?

As for the "In Use" tag you inserted, you'll need to remove that when you are finished with that set of edits you are making. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been gone for more than 12 hours. I have not yet put it back on as I got a business call then allowed you to pull me into sniping here. My mistake there. I am sitting back down and will put the tags back up shortly. Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing more on this "sniping" ... but as it doesn't pertain to article improvement, we should resume that on our personal talk pages. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

More edit conflicts

If you want documentation in Discussion you need to quit editing it, because you are causing edit conflicts making me crazy. I did not put in any text about Operation in Our Sites because I cannot do all things at once and because it is a related but not identical topic. It is pertinent as a precedent for how enforcement will go, is all. But it has everything to do with this bill as it is essentially implementing it pro-actively.

Tell you what, you seem all energetic -- YOU take the in use tag off when YOU are done. I'll go do other stuff and come back maybe tomorrow.Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about adding text about Operation in Our Sites? I was asking you to tell me what text in our article, that mentioned "rogue websites", had you concerned. But whatever... no rush. It's a dead (mostly) bill anyway, and most of the hoopla is now over the new House version introduced last week. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"rogue sites" is a value judgement and one that has been made in error numerous times already. Are you going to tell me what was wrong with the sentence about that new version or do you expect me to guess? And while I am asking questions, please explain to me what is different from the Chinese firewall. The technical implementation is not. Oh, ours targets bad people? Funny, *they* think theirs does too. Which is the point of the free speech concerns Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Rogue websites" is a description that is used by the sources cited in our article, including the EFF. I don't fully understand your assertion that the term is a "value judgement" and is made "in error"; can you point me to a source that would explain that? As for discussing the Chinese firewall, we can do that just as soon as such a discussion is shown to relate to source-based improvement of the Protect IP Act article. Start with providing the reliable sources for our review. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your issue with the sources for the reverted text? Elinruby (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what you are asking here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic tangent

I've moved the following content here for discussion. See the specific concerns after the content:

US Fitness to control internet already questioned
The White House International Strategy for Cyberspace says the "United States supports an Internet with end-to-end interoperability":

The alternative to global openness and interoperability is a fragmented Internet, where large swaths of the world’s population would be denied access to sophisticated applications and rich content because of a few nations’ political interests."

Edward J. Black, CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that COICA would "set an international precedent ... that says it's a good thing for governments to effectively seize websites." In addition, he said, while the 2010 attacks on the DNS server for Wikileaks did crash the name server they did not prevent traffic using the IP address, "a top search result on all major search engines." China recently said that it runs its internet, so notoriously censored that it's dubbed the Great Firewall of China, "in line with internationally accepted practices.”

US-based Verisign controls the .com, .net and .name, top-level domains as well as the popular .cc and .tv domains, under an agreement with ICANN that required approval from the US Department of Commerce, which is currently requesting bids for a new contract. Many of the original 13 root name servers are now distributed anycast systems, each with nodes in multiple countries. Sixty of these devices are located in the United States. The root zone of the internet is administered by IANA, part of ICANN.

There are a number of concerns with this content, not the least of which is its very tenuous applicability to this article. I understand that you are trying to give useful background, but the citations in use here mention nothing about the PROTECT IP Act, and the content diverges down unnecessary paths for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not finished. But I will give you credit for moving not simply deleting in this single instance where you have done so. I cannot work on this right now. The idea though is that the US is already considered too biased to run the name servers, and that's before it starts messing with them for the benefit of the film and music industries.Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting it would be the accepted default response. Consider this "single instance" of moving it here (or the single instance of moving your 'SOPA' content to the SOPA article ... or the single instance of moving the Devin Coldewey opinion here ... or the single instance of ...) an anomaly. The content is interesting, and parts of it would find a welcome home in the IANA article, or general Internet article, but it strays too far from the specific subject matter of this article. That's why we have Wikilinks, so the interested reader can find that related information with a quick click, while not being forced to wade through it here when looking just for PROTECT IP-specific content. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

SOPA redirects to single officer present afloat, surely you didn't put the material there?

Try Stop Online Piracy Act. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ah. will check it out.75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References

re-insertion of incorrect technical description

it's untrue that by design all name servers would contain identical lists since a) it's not exactly a list and b) they are not identical. Some are authoritative and some are not. The uniformity is in agreement on which servers are authoritative. If you don't like my rewrite please say why and suggest another that addresses this issue. - elinruby 75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing comments

you make discussion harder when you group them together as one mass list of things you "took care of." Elinruby (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited any of your comments, but I have reformatted some of the above discussion. Having a Header for every single sentence of a discussion is not only unproductive, but plays havoc with the page archiving bot. (Note that Headers on a talk page are "community property", and sould be short, informative and neutral.) It was not my intention to make discussion harder; I actually thought I was helping. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't "help" ok? You're complaining below that I didn't document something and here that I document "every single sentence." A lot of my changes intended to edge the article towards a neutral point of view and knowing that there is a contentious and adversarial energizer bunny of an editor whose point of view, to be polite, seems to differ greatly from mine, I documented them individually as your reasons for disagreeing with them might be different. In most cases, based on a quick skim, you simply undid them without saying why, and that's not ok. Neither is doing any kind of editing to my reasons for making the change. 75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue to help when I can, thanks. And your statement is incorrect; I'll repeat what I said, "Having a Header for every single sentence of a discussion is not only unproductive, but plays havoc with the page archiving bot." You see? I never complained that you document every sentence. I also see that you are now resorting again to commenting on editors instead of edits, against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

your "help" is not helpful. It forces other editors to scan the entire talk page to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you misquote them. If you're accusing other editors of some conspiracy to hate on you, you've reached the point where you should not be editing what they DID say. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is - and it doesn't force editors to do anything. "especially when you misquote them"? That hasn't happened, and I'll ask you now to provide a diff to the edit where you say it has. I won't hold my breath, as it sounds like more of the same. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to that as I can. I'm still dealing with the misapplied reliable source statements from a couple of days ago. You like to quote policy pages, so let me remind you that one of the things that wikipedia is not is 'compulsory.' I have other things to attend to besides this. Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh huh. By all means, please tend to other things. Don't let me keep you. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(Remainder of discussion not concerning article improvement moved to editor's talk page for continuation. -Xenophrenic)

There is no "ideally"

I removed the word. The whole point of the single root is consistency. Adding reference for that next. Gonna use an RFC, sorry -- it *is* the authority.

Change reverted, trying to assume good faith, too tired to sweat it just now. Here's the quote that supports it: "a single, globally unique root.

  This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.
  Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
  one root in the public DNS. " 

There should be a link to DNS root zone also. We aren't talking about one of many servers, we are talking about *the* server. Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, *the* root server is more than one physical server, but we digress. I can bore you with the technical nuances of the actual primary DNS structure in another venue, at another time. The text at issue here is: Ideally, all domain name servers world-wide would contain identical lists... The word "ideally" as it is used here is not at all inaccurate. If all of the Internet community complied with original design of having a single, authoritative root structure, which would indeed be "ideal", we wouldn't be having this discussion — but the reality is that there has been a proliferation of alternate roots, as well as other recent issues with which to contend. However, I have replaced the word "ideally" with the phrase "By design" to be a little more specific. Does that address your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the root is load-balanced, but that's not the point. It's not just a matter of a US server vs a server somewhere else. A single root keeps track of the 13 root servers in the US and elsewhere. It is run by Verisign as contractor for the US Department of Commerce, via IANA and perhaps other entities -- I have not looked at the org chart and the signatory may in fact be NTIA. But you think Verisign has no expertise in this matter? Also, it's interesting that you mention alternate roots. They have been attempted but always afaik unsuccessfully. And one of the *most* successful, which you would think would be a criterion for expertise, was run by someone whose expertise you want us to document, in the middle of a paragraph. Why these particular experts and not the other sources cited in the article? Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"But you think..." Incorrect. "you want us to document..." Incorrect. Please don't confuse Wikipedia policy with an editor's "wants" or "thinks". We've gone over this, but I will patiently reiterate it as long as necessary. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

please document your contention that requesting an explanation of the expertise of a specific selected sources but not others would in any way represent Wikipedia policy, especially since you have now removed the provided links to their bios without an explanation. Elinruby (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never contended that. I've also not done the latter. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

removed "Abigail Phillips"

The EFF as an organization has opposed all of the different incarnations of this bill and there are many articles on their website about them, by multiple authors. Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true, the article cited for the current text in our article indicates that EFF criticized the previous incarnation of the bill, but are still reviewing the present bill ... and the present criticism was made by Abigail only. Of course, since the publication of that source, EFF may have completed its review of the "PROTECT IP Act", and that more recent opinion of EFF can take the place of the present information. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

please Google or just look at the eff site. There are many articles there by an number of authors. The references don't automagically update yanno. Pick a better one or I will later, providing I ever get a chance....Elinruby (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Really wish I had the spare time for such casual surfing, but since I do not, please confine your content additions to what is conveyed in the cited sources -- not to absent sources that may or may not exist and need to be "Googled" by the reader. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the eff site does not exist? Really? Look, my point here is that the authority for the statement is the group for which she acted as spokeswoman in writing that article. In herself she is not an authority a) and b) in the article she is articulating a position of the *group*. By insisting on reinserting her you obscure that point. This is not the opinion of one lady. This is the opinion of a respected group of free speech lawyers. Oh and by the way, for someone who does not have the time to do a simple google search, you have spent a great deal of time undoing the work of other people Elinruby (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Re: your "point" — thank you for your opinion. Re: your "by the way" personal attack — I'll add that to the growing list. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then what are you saying, please? I have refrained from making the change again and asked you for your reason for reverting it. I've explained why I think it should be made. I've yet to see an actual answer. Just a lot of mumbling entries about personal attacks. Since you seem to be sensitive, I'll try to edit myself even more carefully than I have already in my remarks to you. But I would like you to state your rationale for changing this back, please. As to the "by the way" -- it's a simple observation. It was not intended as an attack and I regret that it came across that way. It does note a discrepancy in your statements, however. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me again; which part of our article is "sensitive", and what "observation" about that part of our article are we discussing? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Many undocumented moves, edits and changes, some more than once

When we know that other editors may disagree, we should take care to spell out our reasons. Right? Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I did notice that many of your changes were not documented here. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(assume good faith, assume good faith, assume good faith). I meant you and I'm sure you know that. You've removed huge chunks of substantive and referenced sections in the couple of days I've been here, and you don't say why or answer requests for a rationale. It's pretty discouraging. If I did not document something, I will say, it was an oversight. Just as a for instance, you said that the expertise of certain sources -- only certain sources, mind -- needed to be documented, then removed the links to bios when I put them in. That THERE is a change that cried out for documentation. Why why why. This just one of many instances. 75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith? You've long since destroyed any such assumptions back when you resorted to childish name-calling ("xenophobic"?), condescension ("You may feel you understand the internet, but..."), the "eyerolling", the references to ankle-biting, "dude", energizer bunnies, etcetera. I find this new selective application of assumption of good faith as if it had a personal On/Off switch disturbing. You have defined the editing atmosphere here, and now you protest about "contentious and adversarial" attitudes when editors respond in kind? Heh. I don't think we have passed the point of no return to a collaborative editing environment here, if that is what you now wish, but I'll leave that up to you. I'm equally comfortable editing in whatever environment you are promoting at the moment.

Addressing your incorrect generalizations: Yes, I have given the rationale behind my edits. Addressing your one specific example: "you said that the expertise of certain sources -- only certain sources, mind -- needed to be documented". No, I certainly did not. And since everything here, unfortunately for you, is recorded in edit histories, we can review what I did say:

• 5 internet researchers, as specified in the cited sources. Couldn't find "DNS experts" in any of the cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Simply provide a reference, or alternatively, we can use the present wording which is in two of the references we cite. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, we are really looking for reliably referenced descriptions of the engineers for use in our article. ... It isn't hard to locate sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS policy on this subject matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• as a Wikipedia community, are looking for proper references to the credentials of those engineers ... Adding a proper reference to support whatever description is used won't change the readability one bit; the reader will simply see a little number enclosed in brackets at the end of the sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• You only need to "find documentation" that the engineers are "experts" in a particular field if you plan on addressing them as such in this article. Your re-written first sentence, while it may be accurate, is in no way supported by the source to which it is cited. So that change has been reverted as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Citing experts is fine; what source(s) would you suggest we use? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• You appear to misunderstand. I did not request documentation from you for my own use or edification. It is a requirement of Wikipedia that the content of our articles be cited to reliable sources, and that is doubly important when writing about living people. Two of our cited sources refer to the gentlemen as "internet researchers", so that is how our article reads. Your dispute isn't with me. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I have been consistent with my requests that if we are going to use "DNS expert" to describe people, simply provide the reliable source for that description. At no time did I ever express personal disagreement with that description. Wikipedia requires that we cite it. You need to keep in mind that this article will also be read by people who don't know a DNS from a BMW, and it will be read by people who require verification of whatever we assert. The fact that certain things may be painfully obvious to *us* doesn't matter. 3 of our 5 cited reliable sources refer to the engineers as "Internet researchers" (and one specifies "post-doctorate researcher"), one also uses the reference "technologists", four of them refer to "engineers", one uses "specialists" ... and since those descriptions appear in the sources, they are acceptable. "Scientists" and "DNS experts" are not in the presently cited sources, but if you insist on those descriptions, why the weird reluctance to cite them as Wikipedia requires? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On the unrelated topic of inserting external links into the body of Wikipedia articles, it may be helpful to read WP:EL. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both links met one of the criteria in WP:ELYES; the one for Dagon also may have met one at WP:ELMAYBE. So your point is what exactly? Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The subject of the article is the PROTECT IP Act, not Dagon. You'll find my point conveyed above. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. But they both meet WP:EL yes so that's a side issue. By the way, I have more to say about this request for documentation, but now I really do have to go. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They are both covered by WP:EL, correct -- that is why they were removed. I also removed several other ELs (7 in total, I believe) that you had inserted into the body of the article. Some of those I was able to convert to Wikilinks (i.e.; The Hill). ELs in the body of an article are very rare, and are to be avoided. If there is content at an external link that you feel is important enough to be conveyed here, create a Wikipedia article about it and then Wikilink to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

November 8 edits

• I replaced the reverted sentence giving the new name of the re-written bill

Since searches for that name redirect here, I am not sure why this is controversial. Perhaps the reverting editor does not like the title of the reference? If so I am open to replacing it with another, but think the onus is on him to suggest one. This is an article on a respected online publication which does a decent job of explaining the relationship of the three proposed bills. I made other changes, which I will document next. Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• added quote from e-parasite sponsor

It addresses important DMCA safe harbor issues and perhaps should be in a separate section. Added reference for attribution Added contrast to senate version with link to senate version. Added sentence explaining importance of DCMA. Anticipating a demand for a reference on that, going there next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• changed contents section, adding quotes and a reference.

The text that follows this needs a re-write, for clarity and to remove improper use of verb "hacking." Elinruby (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• lead -- mostly readability, moved eff ref to more appropriate place, changed "put on hold" to "placed a hold"

• eff ref "coica redux" now supports statement that protect ip is a coica rewrite

• put on hold --> placed on hold, more accurate term, I believe Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• cn tag in lead

• forgot to document this last time I was here. I'll probably be able to remove this myself, but I have seen discussions of certain versions/provisions being for foreign websites and others not -- it's a note to myself to check it, unless someone else wants to do make sure it's the *Senate* bill that does this. Elinruby (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed this I think -- added a citation in any event ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the annotation of the considerable number of edits you have made. Regarding your first two bullet-points above, some of that content is specific to another bill, so I've moved that content into the appropriate article. I've left the remaining 6 bullet-point edits above mostly intact, although I did copy edit a little bit of the text so that it more closely conforms to cited sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of infringement definition

Previous text was essentially cut and paste from the bill. I think this is a fair summary, and although I am not quite happy with it, the sentence is definitely much more readable. Constructive criticism/edits invited. Other editors should be aware that "hacking" has a very specific meaning in some circles and probably should not appear in a sentence which seems to assume that defeating DRM would have a financial purpose. Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "hacking" term didn't sit that well with me, either. I fixed your link to DRM so that it went to the appropriate Wiki article, instead of a general disambiguation page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ah :) thanks for that Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Weasel tag in supporters and opponents

the specific issue is "business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy" when it's clear from the lovingly enumerated list of names that this is a Big Content issue, with some affected unions and the US Chamber of Commerce thrown in. The "many sectors of the economy" is put in opposition to "numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." Notice that it's the individuals who are mentioned first.

There is also a NPOV problem due to the disparate space given each side. I may come back to this but am flagging it in the meantime.Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that the "oppose" section is sparsely populated and does not (at this time) accurately or properly represent that demographic. I have to disagree with your concern about the supporters; you mention the Chamber of Commerce "thrown in" almost as an after thought, when they are actually most responsible for the wide diversity of supporters. They have mustered up petitions of support from more than 350 companies that do indeed span most business sectors. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"thrown in was a rhetorical flourish", ie they are not music or film. They're a player that needs a mention, ya, probably. Not questioning that. Not editing rt now so I don't wanna look at the page and get mad. I'll come back to many/most.Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

oh speaking of getting mad, what in the world do you have against "pro bono groups"? What's the EFF? Public Knowledge? Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against "pro bono groups". Electronic Frontier Foundation. A non-profit advocacy group. Do I advance to the lightning round? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you removed the language from the article I thought perhaps you did. I'd like to put it back. I slightly prefer it to "non-profit advocacy group" since it's more specific, but if you really prefer the latter I can live with it. Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect (again). I didn't remove the language. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Civil liberties section - cn tag for use against malware, pov problem

The sentence:

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation likewise supports the PROTECT IP Act and has noted that concerns about the domain name remedy in the legislation are undercut by the ongoing use of that approach to counter spam and malware. (cn)

has no references at all, not even a link to the organization's website. POV problem in that "noted" implies truth and "undercut" falsehood. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a citation. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

great. Does it address the unusual technical claim (by a lobbying group) and have you fixed the NPOV problem? Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

K, I'll look. Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of sponsors -- moving here

I think Xenephrenic agreed it was a bit excessive. In any event, here it is, just in case:

and co-sponsorship by Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Bob Corker (R-TN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've summarized it. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange - sometime within the last week, the number of Senators on the sponsor list grew by 6. I've changed the text to reflect that. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible and perhaps likely. I'd like to see a link, but assuming the change can be documented I have no issue with updating the text to reflect it.Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for "many sectors of the economy"

I see... film, music, a little pharmacy, ok, Ford's an oddball. I am not feeling the "many" Elinruby (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The citation is already there. Review the 350+ businesses from just about every existing industry, and it will become evident. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nix on Politico as a reliable source

a - a blog. A big well-known blog, with a sort of biased right-wing integrity, I grant you. I might consider it as one of several sources in another context.

BUT

b - it's part of Disney, very much an interested party in this legislation. I'll move the ref here so you don't have to retype it if it turns out the wikipedia page is wrong Elinruby (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "legislation to protect intellectual property and shut down rogue websites." adds zero information, says "rogue" again. Elinruby (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've returned it to the article as a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's criteria (and that has already been tested at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ... you are welcome to raise the issue there yet again if you'd like). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source in some contexts -- I'd take it on a story about Cain for instance if there were also other sources -- but surely not on a story where it has a COI. Did you even look at the wikipedia page?

I checked the Wikipedia page, and it didn't say anything about the Politico news organization (or that particular reporter) having a conflict of interest with this piece of legislation. All news organizations are "owned". If you've discovered COI-based inaccuracies in any of the Politico sources we've cited, I'd be interested in hearing the specifics. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disney, a primary funder of Politico, per the wikipedia article, is one of the primary beneficiaries of current copyright initiatives. - elinruby 75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsequitur. The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp., which is a publicly traded company, and is a primary beneficiary of stock value increases, and therefor the WSJ has a conflict of interest and is not a reliable source of financial news. See? I can be silly, too. Repeating what I've said above: If you've discovered COI-based inaccuracies in any of the Politico sources we've cited, I'd be interested in hearing the specifics -- otherwise, this discussion is nonsense. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the analogy is a straw man and does not address the non-neutral use of language that is the main point of the edit you reverted. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

by the way, I did go look at the reliable noticeboard about politico, and as with Daily Caller did not find anything saying it's necessarily a reliable source. Perhaps you can point me to one. I did see one mention on Archive_11 where it was described as a tabloid, somewhat less reliable than Fox News.

Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

All out of pointers, sorry. If you wish to discount a source as unreliable, please do so at WP:RSN. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Caller not a reliable source

political blog, currently talking about gloria allred. Material in reference is better covered in scribd reference, which remains, although self-published. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) footnote text in case I am wrong: Elinruby (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed wrong. I've returned it to the article, as it is a reliable source (and you also haven't given any legitimate justifications as to why you feel otherwise). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

how does it get to be a reliable source? It's an online blog, not well-known, whose prime focus this morning was whether Gloria Allred's presence at a news conference was reason enough to believe that Herman Cain was innocent. They were leaning to yes, from my skim :) DEFINITELY NOT an authority for a complex technical issue. And the Scribd material covers the issues better, which is why I left it even though Scribd is self-publication by definition. OU has an agenda but does have the vocabulary, is a legitimate voice tho less expert that the others. Elinruby (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misconception that all blogs are disallowed as reliable sources. To the contrary, News site blogs (if they are under the editorial control of the news organization) are specifically allowed. "Scribd" primary sources are generally not allowed to be cited by our Wikipedia articles, unless they are first introduced by a reliable source -- hence the Daily Caller citation. You may find this discussion interesting, as well as similar ones about Daily Caller at that same noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

From the reference YOU cite above:

more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid 

whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use 

their "facts" on Wikipedia would be to basically throw out RS and BLP. 

Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth...

What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion 

that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this - 

whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact - 

( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on 

("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be 

cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word

I only have the evidence that everyone else does...Outlandish claims with very little  substantiation
    ...either way it isn't a very reliable source on the subject. 
Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 

The conclusion reached in this thread appears to be that the *specific article* was fixed, as it ends:

the Caller's presentation of the facts in the journolist email stories has been at best sub-par,

damaging our ability to see them as an honest broker. I'll ignore your other questions. 

Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, but it seems there is no reason to continue the dispute on this noticeboard 

as there appears to be no outstanding RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the *strongest* argument you can make for reliability....

But let's focus on where we agree. The *content* of the Scribd piece is acceptable to me, at least on the surface. I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing. Surely he did not go to all the effort of writing it just to self publish? If you can find it in a journal, we don't need to have this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice cherry-picking, but the argument was indeed confirmed in that discussion, and in many similar discussions on that noticeboard: Yes, the Daily Caller can be cited as a reliable source (and it is still cited as such more than a year after that discussion). As I suggested above, if you wish to contest this, please raise the issue at WP:RSN. The matter of credentials is a separate matter altogether. Further, your personal assessment of anyone's comparative credentials is not only yet another matter, but is useless to us here. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

how do you get a conclusion that it's a reliable source from a thread that concludes with one party saying at best sub-par, might not be an honest broker, and the other party agreeing? Please explain. Meanwhile, the credentials DO matter as the piece is essentially an editorial and if Ou had stronger credentials he would be authority enough in himself. Since he doesn't, I have suggested an alternate resolution. Please address it. Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm all out of favors. We should stick to the matter of article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you for a favor. I made an edit; you reverted it. I asked you why. No favors are involved. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted an edit of yours? That narrows it down. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the reason why would be in the edit summary. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Perhaps you overlooked the many requests for an explanation on this page? Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, right now I'd settle for a rational discussion of this one. You can't just say "Nuh uh, you're wrong" you know. The policy you are citing does not support your action here.Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've not cited any policies in this section. This section is about citing the Daily Caller as a source; something to which you object, and we are in disagreement. Your next step would be to raise your concerns at WP:RSN. As for "the many requests for an explanation on this page", there are indeed many — perhaps you could reiterate the specific one you'd like to discuss in a new section at the bottom of the page. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine. You did not cite a policy. You said I was wrong and that the reason why I was wrong was to be found on an archived internal Wikipedia page dealing with Wikipedia policy. I spend most of my Wikimedia time on Commons, so perhaps there is an important Wikipedia difference here that escapes me. The point is that the archive you cited does not seem to say yeah sure, the Daily Caller is a reliable source. At all.

While we're on the topic of vocabulary, let's skip some semantics on another point. I noticed after I made some of my comments here that "revert" seems to imply use of the Undo control. Most of your changebacks seem to be made using some other method. Do you edit your text in an external editor? Maybe all these changes that you don't think you made are due to a versioning problem ;) But it would be great to get if figured out because it feels kinda like seeing hard work flushed down the toilet Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do I have to pick *one* explanation that I'd like to get? — Elinruby

, — (continues after insertion below.) (You don't, and I never implied such. You said, "right now I'd settle for a rational discussion of this one", to which I replied, "perhaps you could reiterate the specific one you'd like to discuss". -Xenophrenic) (indented by me for clarity)Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked you three times already not to edit my entries on the talk page.

• First of all, it makes my entries harder to read.
• It feels like an attempt to get the last word, and that's childish. And selfish. If a point is important enough for you to want to address it, consider that I may have something to say to your reply
• I do not now how to answer that template and
• see no reason why you can't indent underneath my entry like everyone else.

To answer your question, the scope of this is local, obviously ;)...to put it another way, "this one" means the request for rationale described by the header of this section and the paragraphs that follow it. You say that the reference you provided supports your contention that the Daily Caller is a reliable source. Please show how this can be. I see nothing of the kind there. Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You undid many edits, all of which I explained when I made them. In fact, you complained that I had a separate header for every sentence, as I recall. If you dislike the changes or think they are wrong, then fine, you are entitled to that opinion, but you can't just change them back without saying why you think so. I'm not even finding edit summaries and am baffled by most of them. — Elinruby , — (continues after insertion below.)

(Every change I have made has been accompanied by an explanation. If you'd like additional information, simply ask. Please do not confuse my reluctance to give the exact same explanation for a 4th or 5th time as "without saying why" - I will be happy to redirect you to past iterations so that you may re-read them.) -Xenophrenic (indented by me for clarity)Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do direct me to any past iterations of any answer you have made to the question of how:

"at best sub-par" perhaps not an "honest broker"

"I agree"

translate to "reliable source."Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So why not just SAY what the issue is in your mind, so we can discuss it. I am very concerned that this article, which contains material that is definitely wrong, and other material that is definitely slanted, is the top result on google on a piece of pending legislation. Were I not here as a result of a request for comment, or if I did not think this article very important, I would have walked away days ago. But. Reliable source noticeboard = done. I was actually coming in to let you know this. I am also working on a new section, which I may not be able to finish before I have to go. But I want to make sure you understand that its points are *in addition* to the other requests elsewhere. — Elinruby , — (continues after insertion below.) (Take heart, this legislation is likely to remain "pending" forever, and the spotlight is now on the newer SOPA bill instead. But that is no excuse to not get this article about the old defunct bill "right", and I'm willing to work with you to that end. -Xenophrenic)

You make it hard to believe that. And you do realize that they need both bills, reconciled, for a law? And they do seem determined to get a law Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And many of your changes to the article are not yet addressed, such as why it is for some reason so important to you that we say that links "resolve." They don't; the domain names do. The point is technical, yes. This is a technical article and its technical points should be correct. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. I've addressed all of my changes. If what you are struggling to say is that they haven't been addressed to your personal satisfaction, then simply raise those concerns for discussion. Hey, like you just did with the issue of saying that links "resolve"! May we use that example? Here is my response:

(1) It isn't "so important to me" to say that. (2) Those are not my words. I am not the editor who inserted that sentence. (3) Nor have I ever re-inserted those words if they were removed. (4) They were in the article when I got here; they were still in the article after your marathon edit session; they are still in the article now. (5) If you think the cited source has been misrepresented, then fix it — or if you feel our cited source is just plain incorrect, then show the sources that refute the one we are using. Simple, really. I'll look for any additional issues you raise in new sections at the bottom of the page, as this one is getting bloated. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

look, I changed the sentence to address the issue. You did a big edit after which the change was gone. I concluded that you liked this formulation or disliked mine. So given your comments above may I take it that you have no objection to a re-write on this point when I get a chance? Because it *is* important, if a nitpick. It concerns the workings of DNS in a context of explaining proposed changes to those workings. This will be my next task, then. Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. See below. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, you really don't seem like an arbiter of correctness. Could you not just say no? And say why? Because I'm in an edit window and can't answer you now until I close it and go see if I can intuit what you think supports your "incorrect" label. Elinruby (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. See below. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls double check ref to Crunchgear article

I took out this text because I think it's an inaccurate summary of his piece, and also am not sure the private right of action extends to search engines -- think I saw elsewhere that no.
sigh, oops, text not in my buffer, really need to leave, will try to amend this later Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved it here for you:

Freelance writer Devin Coldewey has claimed that the fact that an injunction can be issued without notifying the allegedly infringing site nullifies the legal presumption of innocence. The ability of any private rights holder to bring legal action against a site via a court and require search engines to censor their search results may make the law unrealistic.

It's from a non-notable, non-specialist and from a non-RS site, so I don't see it making its way back into our article. But I've seen his same concerns raised in better sources. I'll dig them up. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

eh it's a blog but it's a tech blog. But no, not especially wonderful as a reference. I say weak keep. I am open to swapping in a better quote tho esp if he does say that about search engines and is in fact wrong. Thanks for fishing around in history for me.

By the way, if it was you that unblanked those paragraphs thank you for that also. Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References

"Resolve" wording

(Copied here from above section for further discussion.)

why would you copy it here for further discussion? You said you were not attached to the wording.

look, I changed the sentence to address the issue. You did a big edit after which the change was gone. I concluded that you liked this formulation or disliked mine. So given your comments above may I take it that you have no objection to a re-write on this point when I get a chance? Because it *is* important, if a nitpick. It concerns the workings of DNS in a context of explaining proposed changes to those workings. This will be my next task, then. Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying I made an edit that changed the use of the word "resolved", I would like to review that. Could you please provide a diff before you re-write it? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll just re-write it, since you say you have no objection. I'm trying to find areas of agreement. That's why I keep banging my head on this page. Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Elinruby, you have accused me of undoing a change to the "resolve" wording made by you in our article. I believe you are incorrect. I am asking you for a diff to that edit you say I made. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And you denied it. I am not sure, since you have moved this discussion, whether this is the instance of such problems above where I asked if you might be using a text editor and having version problems. All I know -- as mentioned -- is that I did a partial rewrite of the page, including this sentence. Then you did another and many of my changes were gone, including the ones to this sentence. Maybe I'll go find your diff later, but just now there are more important things to do. There's a long queue of issues with your behaviour to document. In a day only that has 24 hours I think I should prioritize the ones that affect page content or are currently in wikiquette. Since we aren't sure this particular problem is due to your behaviour, and you say you aren't attached to the language, this is neither. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have all the time in the world when it comes to commenting about other editors and casting groundless aspersions upon them. Yet, when you are confronted and pressed to substantiate your personal attacks, you are conveniently pressed for time and can't be bothered.

• You accuse me of "misrepresenting your statements on several occasions". I asked you to show diffs to substantiate even just one occasion, but you declined.
• You accuse me of misquoting other editors on talk pages. I asked you for just a single example to justify your undeserved attack, but again you are too busy to be bothered, as you "have other things to attend to besides this".
• You accuse me of undoing a specific edit of yours involving the word "resolve", yet when I ask you for a diff so that I may review it, you again conveniently run out of time, saying "Maybe I'll go find your diff later, but just now there are more important things to do."

And you wonder why I get exasperated and say I am all out of favors. Please do let me know if you ever have any interest in working collaboratively and civilly on this project. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

cn tags in business and innovation section

I don't see a reference to any government reports on this topic. The MPAA pages currently cited in (I believe) footnotes 47 and 48 hardly qualify as "reports"; the Envisional group appear to be paid lobbyists. While their output may qualify as a "report" I question its characterization as "independent." Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Business and innovation issues"

Is there anything in this section that belongs here? It sounds like a bunch of random observations about piracy, which are not actually linked to the bill. For example, how much of the $12.7 billion figure for piracy (which I find remarkably small, actually) would actually be prevented by such a bill, even if it is not readily circumvented? If we accepted such a grab bag of random data, I'd want to know how much money American consumers save by piracy... Wnt (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

good point. I wrote this section, and my intention was to try to show why someone might think the bill is a good idea. I find this difficult since I do not. As far as *I* am concerned the section can use all the help it can get. I did have an opposing link such as you suggest, but ran out of time, it was in the "A VC" column on businessinsider if someone wants to add it -- I can't right now.75.149.44.10 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I created the "Business and innovation issues" subsection after encountering a number of complaints about how the PROTECT IP Act would "stifle innovation", place an undue burden on businesses to police their own sites, and also subject legitimate businesses to additional litigation costs. Instead, what exists in that section presently appears to be the other side of the coin — argements about how the PROTECT IP Act, if implemented, would benefit business and innovation. Sure, we can have those arguments conveyed, too, but that wasn't the original impetus behind creating that subsection. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is that "A VC" column on businessinsider -- I can't look for it now, am just grabbing a second between tasks. I think I actually saw it on the page for the House bill. You could quote Zoe Lofgren or pull some quotes out from that sfgate article that is/was up around the lead. I actually think that most of the quotes in this section are specious, but was trying to articulate a more articulate rationale than just that the bill is good because it targets rogue websites. Surely such a thing exists. But ya, feel free to do whatever here, this was a very preliminary piece of writing. I *would* like to make the point that the study they are citing seems to in fact be by a lobbying group, if in fact that is true. I do seem to recall seeing that on the group's about page. Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, so I went ahead and added quotes from and a reference to this article. Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

picking one of the problems at random -- experts vs researchers

It is incorrect to call the five authors of the white paper "researchers." This term is usually applied to grad students and lone-wolf types who look for software vulnerabilities.

• It almost applies to Dagon, but he also seems to have his own security firm and to be a college professor. It was quite difficult to find the link that was removed, by the way, but he does have a bio out there and since he doesn't have a wikipedia page the article should link to it for identification purposes. ie item #1 of WP:ELYES and item #1 of WP:ELOFFICIAL.

• Kaminsky is one of the most famous people in network security and identified a problem for which Microsoft rushed out an emergency patch. The problem lies in the misuse of exactly the part of DNS used in the proposals -- edits to the cache of recursive servers. This takes him out of the "random guy in his garage" category completely.

• Danny McPherson is the chief security officer at Verisign. A link to his bio there also meets both WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL. It is especially important that he works at Verisign since they manage all of .com, .net, .cc and .tv, and therefore probably should be listened to when they talk about name servers. And this is their head security guy talking about a security problem.

• Steve Crocker is chairman of the board of ICANN, which essentially runs all of the rest of the internet that Verisign does not. This is an addition to a major role in the creation of the internet, see wikipedia page.

• Paul Vixie is an author of the BIND software most people use for DNS, belongs to a list of internet governance groups, and has managed at least two root servers, including one alternate system, so presumably he knows something about the problems that can arise when you do start one.

I am at a loss as to how this group might be described other than as "experts." Researcher definitely makes them sound much less important than they are. Elinruby (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are actually 2 issues described here. (1) The use of External Links to other websites in the body of our Wikipedia article, and (2) Your preference for calling the 5 Internet engineers "experts" instead of the phrase used in our multiple cited sources, "Internet researchers". Both of these issues have been discussed at length above. I'll give a brief summary here:

Issue (1): We don't place links to external websites inline in our Wikipedia articles. There are a few rare exceptions when we might, but these instances do not qualify. You have misread WP:ELYES and EL:OFFICIAL, both of which might apply only if you were arguing to stick those external links into a Wikipedia article about Dagon or a Wikipedia article about McPhearson - this Wikipedia article is not about them, it is about the PROTECT IP Act. The external links are in violation of policy. Suggestion: if you'd spend just a fraction of the time you've spent arguing this issue on creating or updating Wikipedia articles on these 5 engineers, you could just Wikilink to them in our article here.

Issue (2): You are arguing against a reliably sourced description ("Internet researchers") that is not presently in use in our article, but let's pretend that it is... If you are advocating for expanding the description of the engineers by adding "expert" to the text, I have no objection as long as the description of the 5 gentlemen as such is properly sourced. In fact, I don't personally disagree with your opinion of these guys, but then our opinions aren't at issue here. Heck, you can call them "Exquisitely Brilliant" if the source saying so meets Wikipedia's qualifications. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Engineers is better but still has the same problem. Look. Two of these guys manage the internet or at least big chunks of it. One of them arguably designed it, wrote a draft for it, whatever. Had a role in writing it. One of them manages part of the DNS system we're talking about and oh by the way co-wrote one of its more important implementations. So appropriate nouns would be architect, maybe manager, maybe author. Researcher perhaps applies to Dagon and *maybe* Kaminsky, who might be more of a gadfly. They, on the other hand, are not authors or architects or managers. I am happy to entertain any appellation that encompasses all of these roles. Principal scientist is a title this kind of guy tends to have but I seem to recall someone not liking the term scientist. I came up with expert. Alternate formulations are invited. Why does this one word matter? Because it's one of a multitude of small wrongnesses here all of which coincidentally make opposition to this bill look more fringe, more scattered, and less rational than it is. See the Abigail Phillips discussion for another example. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(Just going to cut&paste...) I have no objection as long as the description of the 5 gentlemen as such is properly sourced. In fact, I don't personally disagree with your opinion of these guys, but then our opinions aren't at issue here. Heck, you can call them "Exquisitely Brilliant" if the source saying so meets Wikipedia's requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So... can I use http://www.darkreading.com/cloud-security/167901092/security/vulnerabilities/229700070/dns-filtering-legislation-would-derail-dnssec-experts-contend.html as a source here, or are you going to undo the change and refer me to RSN on that too? Just asking; since we have this big discussion going here I don't want to just randomly insert a reference into a sentence about which you seem to feel strongly. Elinruby (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/dns-filtering-absolutely-the-wrong-way-to-defend-copyrights.ars which is rather better-known, and also refers to the group as "experts." So unless I hear otherwise, it seems as though your dequest for documentation has been answered. Elinruby (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the question of external links, I submit that this is a case where common sense should apply. A wiki page on one of the above individuals would be a BLP and require that I demonstrate notability. It may well apply, but I honestly don't have the time or inclination to address all the side issues that would arise. What I am saying here is that as he is an important executive with Verisign, and Verisign runs important parts of the internet, his input should therefore be considered. He may also be an expert in and of himself but I don't think I should need to go through the BLP process to prove that, especially not for more than one individual. I don't remember what I finally linked to for Dagon, but Danny MacPherson's bio on the Verisign site seems to be an official page and thus meet one of the exceptions. Arguing against the inclusion of information when you are simultaneously asking for documentation of expertise seems a bit...convenient odd. Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are talking about; those exceptions do seem to limit themselves to the topic of the article. I am however having trouble with the idea that the proper application of this policy is the removal of information, particularly since the information they add is innocuous and undisputed, and goes to partially fulfill your own request for documentation of the expertise of these individuals. What would *you* suggest? Elinruby (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reference to "rogue" websites

Many of the websites shutdown in copyright infringement actions were quite legal and quite a few did not in fact infringe, so I call non-neutral point of view on this.Elinruby (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This bill has not passed, so no websites have yet been affected by it. Perhaps if you could copy the specific text here to which you object, we could have a look at it. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

they don't need no stinking laws -- they're just doing it anyway. Google Operation in our Sites Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

...and, of course, no specific text in our Wikipedia article to have a look at. I don't need to Google "Operation In Our Sites" - I am quite familiar with it, and I have this suspicion that it has nothing to do with the text you claim to have concerns about. Guess I'll wait to see if you clue us in on what that text is. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit falls into this category as well: I removed "and many industries have also publicly praised the PROTECT IP Act for cutting off access of rogue websites to the U.S. marketplace." because it contains no actual information and needlessly repeats the MPAA term "rogue". In other words, I call peacock and non-neutral.Elinruby (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked; the term "rogue site" is not an MPAA term, as you have incorrectly asserted, and it hasn't been used in our article in a non-neutral manner. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Where and how did you check, please? It's all over the MPAA site: http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/roguewebsites.

As to non-neutral, the word itself is non-neutral, regardless of how it is used. All of the meanings listed at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rogue are derogatory. Elinruby (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

change to contents section

I removed the following text "follow existing federal court procedures, including providing" as the associated citation does not support it. If a different section does support this language, and somebody considers the text important, I am open to its reinsertion with a reference. Elinruby (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed reference for workings of DNS

It's an online chapter of a technical text by a respected mainstream publisher. It does discuss the importance of the root servers. (section 2.6) If people agree that it's an authoritative reference, I'll attempt a 1-2 sentence summary in a few days. It's not the article's primary focus, but in my opinion such a summary is needed for non-network types to understand the technical concerns.

http://oreilly.com/catalog/dns3/chapter/ch02.html

Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The first mention of the Domain Name System in our article is also linked to the Domain Name System article, which itself cites the publication you mention above. Those wishing a fuller explanation of certain technical concerns should have such links readily available in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The wikilink on the first reference is fair enough, but the thing is, that article does not have a section on "why messing with this is a bad idea." How do you suggest we address this? Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue with Sources 35-40

Sources 35 and 36 represent the views of a single engineer with reasonable credentials. Source 37 does not provide any contradiction or refutation of the whitepaper; however it is cited as support for such. Same issue with Sources 38 and 39. Source 40 includes opinions both in favor of and against the bill, only two of whom appear to have a technical background and therefore the credentials to give an expert opinion.

Accounting for all factors, there are two expert opinions that detract from the opinion in the whitepaper. The others are irrelevant and do not support the claim made.

129.21.68.212 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 19 - 20 Edits & NPOV

I reverted several removals of citation needed due to the fact that I could not find any information to support those individual statements, and apparently neither could other people.

Also rebuilt several sections removed by another editor. It seemed one individual part was addressing SOPA and not Protect IP explicitly, which caused them to remove every edit I did although they were constructive sourced edits. Even removed some sources and replaced with citation needed tags. Took the liberty of resourcing, with more sources including CNN which I hope we can agree is somewhat reliable. I didn't reinstate the section that was talking about SOPA even though the two bills are very similar out of respect for the editor, and hope that the misunderstanding that caused him or her to revert every edit I did does not repeat or continue. Hopefully we can continue editing this article together in collaboration, and improve it. I know it is a "Hot" issue and relevant current event, which is why we must keep our statements sourced.

I also question the NPOV of the statements of the MPAA and RIAA who are also the funders of the bill. Despite the widespread opposition the article makes it seem like the supporting and opposing sides are both widespread views equally supported by the public. This however is not the case. Studies of perceptions of piracy in the US show that the public widely holds it as socially acceptable [4] with an over whelming majority against censoring infringing websites, and against anything larger than a small nominal fine (under $100) per infringement. The support for the bill seems to be entirely from the lobbying groups for the recording industry. The opposition seems to be every internet giant, prominent computer scientists, internet engineers, law professors, many journalists, computer experts in government [5] and the general public. To someone reading the article this would not be clear at all and the fact that the supporters are primarily the RIAA and MPAA, and those they lobbied is not immediately apparent in the article.

7goods (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We should be careful not to draw our own conclusions from studies (or, in this case, preliminary comments about a not fully published study) and apply them to the subject of this Wikipedia article. If studies have been conducted with results that directly pertain to the PROTECT IP Act, we should most certainly consider them for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Looking further at the study link you provided above, I see that the survey was sponsored by Google, was taken before this PROTECT IP Act existed, and the results of the study won't be made available until 2012 -- and you wish to enter content based upon this into the article here? Do we at least have secondary, independent, reliably sourced reporting on the implications of this on PIPA? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PIPA should direct directly to this page

I think that the page PIPA should redirect to this page and a disambiguation page be created, similar to the SOPA bill. It is obviously a topic that has gained much attention as of late, and is the most likely what users are looking for when they search PIPA. --Stevoisiake (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

free speech

This violates free speech completly and can be used to shut down opposing views. For example www.example.com are an anarchy site the current goverment leaders dont like this so they fing any image, text or video and shut them down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.204.97 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See [6]. The first case I can recall of reading of a site being censored via DNS was a site www.alpha.org in the 1990s, which at that time was a rather flashy racist site. I can't find a reference about it. I don't know if we have any articles on DNS censorship in general, as this is obviously too broad a topic to address here. Wnt (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

nono it's not, because that is exactly what the bill does. What it proposes is almost exactly how the Great Firewall of China works. Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the two are nothing alike. What this bill proposes addresses violators of intellectual property laws. That is nothing like what is implemented in China -- although it isn't beyond some of the more fringe detractors of the bill to make unfounded claims that this legislation can be abused to "censor" the internet the way China has. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

please document your assertion that these claims are unfounded, as well as the appellation "fringe detractors." Does this refer to the authors of the white paper discussed elsewhere? If so, as people deeply involved with internet standards groups such as ARIN, they are hardly "fringe" anything. The name-calling says more about your input than it does about them. As for the foundedness of the claim, I assure you that the technical details are very very similar. I'll expand on that here if you wish, as you clearly have not previously encountered the concept. Elinruby (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to under other circumstances. As it stands now, I'm all out of favors. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What the bill addresses are those ACCUSED of violation if intellectual property laws, by punishing them without due process of law. You remember due process, yes? You know, courts, juries, lawyers... This is all behind closed doors. Meanwhile, if I'm a bad guy overseas and wish to be shielded from US attention, all I'd need to do is put infringing software on my site, then get blocked by anyone in or of the US, which includes law enforcement and intelligence communities, as they are constitutionally required to obey the law. Positively brilliant!Wzrd1 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Supporters and opponents

supporters - 17 lines opponents - 3 lines Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the list of Senators sponsoring the bill can be reduced to a simple number, and called bipartisan or something. The reader can click on the cited sources to learn which individual does or does not support the legislation. The list of individual companies can be likewise summarized into broader industry-type groups. Also, I was in the process of expanding the "opposition" section from some sources I've found (a recent Forbes article, a signed letter by 100+ law professors in the technology and civil liberties areas, etc.), when Morgan requested that we take a brief break in editing the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The cited article doesn't read or suggest proponents span all sectors of the economy. Maybe replace all with various? Lukelittle (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a phrase in the Opponents section: "as well as numerous other businesses and individuals, pro bono, civil, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." which is cited, but I checked the source and it does not contain any of those words. Nowhere in the LA Times article is there anything about rights groups, schools, libraries, or anything. I am going to be bold and remove it. What do you think? Braincricket (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Create New Section Listing Possible Means of Circumventing this Legislation

I think it would be useful to include some mention of any possible means of circumventing this legislation if it does pass. For example, what happens if an "infringing" site is located outside the US? Could this legislation also apply to torrent (P2P) sites that do not actually store copyrighted material onsite?Jonny Quick (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What happens if an infringing site is located outside the US? Then PIPA applies to it. Infringing sites in the US are already covered by existing law. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be more informative specifying if it "applies" only to foreign domains of companies located in USA? Otherwise it lools like the country actually owns the web, that's a matter for the United Nations. Have used a respectful service called Megaupload, so respectful that supported "foreign" languages (in the plural) to share not your English crap, so my question.

PIPA Update

Due to complains from most of opponents, senators have posponed a vote on PIPA. Add this to the acticle. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57362677-261/senate-vote-on-pipa-is-postponed/ Rouward (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

IP?

Internet protocol? Internet piracy? Intellectual property? Probably the last, I would guess. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added this: Talk:Blackout#Wikipedia_blackout_Wednesday_1-18-2012 . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RJHall, the full name of the act is the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011", so IP does stand for Intellectual Property, and is not a reference to Internet Protocol addresses. -MASher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.13.156 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, multiple Russian news articles actually do describe it as an IP address protection law. The query “защите IP-адресов” at Yandex gives mostly articles about SOPA and PIPA, down to November 2011. --AVRS (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Infographic, impact of internet blackout

http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/

from

http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update

Check this out. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I'm neither in favor or against the bill (haven't read it), but I am aware that WP campaigned against it, thereby removing all ideas of objectivity it can claim. A large disclaimer is in order for this so-called objective encyclopedia. 68.103.234.212 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is definitely a valid concern. Thankfully, everyone can edit Wikipedia, so it is up to you to make sure that the article is written in a neutral tone, and that facts presented therein are verifiable. If you think that part of the article is biased, be bold and edit it. Don't forget to cite your sources. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)