Talk:PROTECT IP Act

Lots of bias
This article has quite a lot of bias against the bill. Wikipedia itself is biased against the bill, as evidenced by their "important message" in 2012. This needs to be fixed, and quickly. CheeseInTea (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea


 * I disagree and would ask to be notified of any effort to remove the technical concerns, which may seem opaque to the untrained but imnsho have been demonstrated to have been completely founded.


 * Disclosure: I was heavily involved in this article prior to that important message, which was indeed *very* important and should not be put in scare quotes.


 * Further disclosure: At the time I had two computer networking certifications pertaining directly to redundant WAN, load balancing and recursive DNS, although possibly they have expired now, not sure. With respect, anyone who needs a definition of any of those three terms is probably over their head and should discuss their concerns on the talk page before doing anything substantive to this highly technical article.Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC) PROTECT IP Act → Protect Intellectual Property Act — The article was remove back to PROTECT IP Act by user David Levy after I was rename it to Protect Intellectual Property Act — the most correctly title. Reasons to remove this and this revert back: 1. Uncorrect title “PROTECT IP Act” for Wikipedia. It must be ONLY “Protect IP Act” to this type of title. 2. Unfull title. Full is “Protect Intellectual Property Act”. 3. Similar with the next Wikipedia articles: 3.1. Stop Online Piracy Act — NOT “STOP OP Act” or “Stop OP Act” 3.2. Copyright Term Extension Act — NOT “COPYRIGHT TE Act” or “Copyright TE Act” … etc. 4. Headline “PROTECT IP Act” is misleading because this article has no relation to IP that meaning in Internet usually as “Internet Protocol”. --GleeFil 10:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This long designation is commonly abbreviated to "PROTECT IP Act", with the uppercase "PROTECT" reflecting the fact that it's an acronym (specifically a backronym). "IP" also commonly refers to "intellectual property", as reflected in the bill's common name. —David Levy 12:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 2. The word "bill" is part of neither. We don't rename things based our ideas of what they should be called. —David Levy 17:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article shows that the full title of the act is "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act". See?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you if you're new to Wikipedia, but we have WP:Official names and WP:Article title guidelines justify the current title despite the ambiguity of the "IP" acronym. It's official and commonly used by our reliable sources. Yes, we have WP:ignore all rules and WP:common sense as well, but they only applies to the matters that we actually can change. Interpreting someone's silly acronym without reliable source constitutes WP:original research. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As noted above, the bill's full title is "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011".  The word "protect" isn't even included.
 * Rename to  Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property bill-- It should have its full name, not an abbreviation. WP prefers full names.  Secondly, according to the article it is not yet an act, only a bill, and will remain so until it is passed and the President signs it.  The other version can remain as a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Wikipedia prefers common names, not full names.
 * Abbreviations in titles are OK if the subject "is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form". Check out CD-ROM, Amphetamine, Gestapo, and Laser. Braincricket (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per arguments by David Levy and Sameboat - 同舟. The ambiguity is addressed right up front in the article. Definitely have to leave it all caps with PROTECT to indicate it's an acronym. Braincricket (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Food for thought. According to WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." A search engine test with "$NAME" -Wikipedia yields:
 * "PROTECT Intellectual Property Act" – 156,000 results
 * "PROTECT IP Act" – 18,500,000
 * "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property bill" – 1,040
 * I know you gotta take search tests with a grain of salt, but it seems "PROTECT IP Act" is more popularly referenced than the other two. Braincricket (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Economic impact estimates in Business and innovation section
I believe the following content would contribute to the Business and Innovation section. However, I'm a newbie at editing wikipedia and would feel more comfortable if more experienced eyes checked the neutrality of the tone and appropriateness of the citations. The proposed text would follow as a new paragraph following "...70,000 lost jobs." Thanks in advance for help from the pros!

PROPOSED ADDITION: Making accurate estimates of the economic impact of IP piracy is difficult and contentious.[1] Cato Institute fellow Julian Sanchez and adjunct scholar Tim Lee found the economic models and assumptions used by the Institute for Policy Innovation to be inappropriate, with the resulting economic impact estimates inflated.[2][3] Similarly, the Government Accountability Office was unable to replicate the research methodology of economic impact estimates provided by the MPAA.[1][4] The same GAO report also notes that three frequently cited government estimates of the economic impact of piracy and counterfeiting "cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology."[1]

[1]"GAO-10-423. Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Conterfeit and Pirated Goods", April 2010 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10423.pdf

[2]"How Copyright Industries Con Congress" January 3, 2012 http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/

[3]"Texas-Size Sophistry", October 1, 2006 http://techliberation.com/2006/10/01/texas-size-sophistry/

[4]"Feds hampered by incomplete MPAA piracy data", April 19, 2010 http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002837-261.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.180.118 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Great Firewall of America" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Firewall_of_America&redirect=no Great Firewall of America] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)