Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 6

Other Contries
I noticed something today. It would seem that there is a law similar to SOPA in Germany. Some of my videos on Youtube are flagged as being unavailable in Germany. I hope I'm jumping to conclusions, but to me this looks like exactly what just got repelled in the US. The videos in question are World of Warcraft gameplay with a sound track in the background. What really amazed me is the fact that they are willing to deploy the kind of resources to come and get a guy like me. Only 2 of them have more then 200 views which makes me a nobody in the Youtube world. The companies in question are Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Emi Music and Warner Music Group. This is definitely worth mention, especially since muting the videos would have done the job. This is censorship and something I will consider very seriously the next time I buy electronic or music products. Didn't anyone tell them it's bad PR? Enalung (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no SOPA-like law in Germany at the moment. The reason why many Youtube videos are not available there is an ongoing dispute between Youtube and German performance rights organisation GEMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesellschaft_f%C3%BCr_musikalische_Auff%C3%BChrungs-_und_mechanische_Vervielf%C3%A4ltigungsrechte). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.176.162 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Call for consensus
I propose that we shove the following bits back into the lede section. They seemed rather nice points people would like to read.


 * Number 1 "The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a rights advocacy non-profit group, confirmed the protests were the biggest in Internet history, with over 115 thousand sites altering their webpages."


 * Number 2 "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that proxy servers and websites hosting user-generated content, such as Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo, could be targeted under the (what goes here, original? some date?) bill"

If you like them, you say support and if you don't like them you say oppose. Cites and References don't need to be perfect for information to be shoved into an article, and if people find better references that say for example it was 60 or 150 thousand, than it is very easy to improve later on, so don't let that worry you, you can just say if you like it or not, because that is more than enough for now. Penyulap  talk 17:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Supporting #1, opposing #2, on the grounds that it appears to refer to an earlier version of the bill (as far as I know domestic websites like Etsy, Flickr, Vimeo can't be targeted in the current version). Dcoetzee 17:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How to improve the wording there ? Penyulap   talk 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like further information upon which to base an opinion. Could you please give the reliable sources from which your proposed content is derived, for our review? Also, I see that the lede already notes the protests mentioned in your (Number 1) proposal, and already notes the expressed concern about targeting host websites (Number 2) -- could you explain in more detail your intent by adding the above expansion text to the lede? Beyond "seemed rather nice points", I mean.  The WP:LEDE should neutrally summarize, while specific arguments and assertions from both sides of the issue are covered in detail in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

sopastrike.com
I asked the guy who runs some site how he came up with the figures, he said, and I won't make it a link, as you may well crash your browser if your not careful, he says 75,000 sites registered with his site here sopastrike dot com/on-strike/ and please feel free to count them, cause I don't care to. Further, he says that Wordpress told him an additional 45,000 used their wordpress specific blackout widget. He personally recommends the graphic at http://sopastrike.com/numbers/ as a summary figure. That graphic has twitter stuff, however my attention span is too long to use twitter, so I'll need someone else to check whatever it is going on there.

Things that are not controversial don't need references, but naturally they help, if this internet protest is not the largest to date, I'd love to know what on earth it is being compared to and coming up short. Does anyone have any reason whatsoever to doubt these claims that it's somewhat larger than your average internet protest ? Penyulap  talk 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The guy was from fight for the future they apparently run that website. So if you like I can ask him to post on his site a little press release for Xenophrenic if needed. The guy's name is Douglas. Penyulap  talk 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If needed for what? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I would like further information upon which to base an opinion." -Xenophrenic. If can't recall who put the info in there in the first place, was it me or someone else? If it was me, what would you like to know, if it was someone else, maybe you can ask them.? Penyulap   talk 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "what would you like to know" - Penyulap
 * Just the two items I mentioned above, regarding reliable sources and the intent of your proposed edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sue Gardner
On the right, as part of the caption of an image, it mentions Sue Gardner. Maybe link it to Sue Gardner. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Open the SOPA page to badly needed editing.
Dear _______,

In a recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=1&emc=eta1), Wikipedia is blamed for misleading users into believing that SOPA would cause blackouts of their site. Wikipedia created an online "stunt" (blackout of the site) designed to create a panic over a "censorship scenario" that was never even a possibility. Further, the stunt implied that blackouts would happen to other sites as well, which was also never a possibility.

We know that the SOPA legislation never called for any such action, never used the word "censorship" and features a condition at the beginning stating that the legislation shall in no way affect freedom of speech.

Wikipedia has abused its members and its good reputation by involving itself in politics and creating confusion over SOPA: a well-intended policy that has a comprehensive plan to protect inventors, designers, musicians, artists, and filmmakers from a wide range of online and overseas thefts.

Wikipedia must allow the news of its mistake to be included in the article for the enlightenment of all. Why? Because we must dedicate ourselves to rational, level-headed conversation about such issues, and never resort to political tactics and stunts. This kind of rash, inflammatory behavior is totally inappropriate for a learning community site.

As far as I know, no members of Wikipedia were ever asked if they agreed to have the site blacked-out. Does this mean that we spend our time writing and editing the site for nothing? When will you next abuse us to make a political statement?

Allow me to edit the article on SOPA so that we can reinvest ourselves in a commitment to unbiased, rational thought & decision making.

Sincerely,

Simon Miller 

Simonlylemiller (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests are for asking users with the relevant permissions to change X to Y, not to request that you edit the page. If you want to edit, please wait until you are autoconfirmed, then edit it yourself, however it looks like you may have a conflict of interest on the matter, so please be careful. If you would like me to change a specific sentence/paragraph, please re-open this request. If you would like to contact Wikipedia regarding the matter, please see here. Thanks. -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm personally all for voicing all points of view, and I'd pretty much copy in anything I'm asked to, in this case I can't be bothered as there is not really a cut'n'paste offered, and I can't be bothered to incorporate it myself as it's really low quality. In the link to the New York Times given, there is a sentence "Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact. " I think CARY H. SHERMAN and the NYT in this case should be added to that list. Penyulap   talk 06:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon Miller's Request
I concur with Mr. Miller. Wikipedia has done serious damage to its previously well-earned reputation as a neutral arbiter of information that was freely edit-able by anyone. There are many of us who are deeply suspicious of the "grassroots" nature of the anti-SOPA campaign, especially as existing practices financially reward Google and others who serve as portals for stolen intellectual property and SOPA, while having little to do with "internet freedom" threatens that stream of income. Wikipedia's management's decision to join forces with a large, wealthy, near-monopoly to advance a particular political agenda is disheartening to say the least. One honorable way to compensate for this would be to allow Mr. Miller to make his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.193.177 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr Miller can make his edits. Anyone can, signing up is free, easy, and as far as I recall requires no info from the new user. Maybe an email address is optional. Have a look into it.


 * Also I don't think Wikipedia has much reputation left. It's more a lagging reputation from the 'good old days' of the early 2000's that is still filtering through.


 * re "There are many of us who are deeply suspicious of the "grassroots" nature of the anti-SOPA campaign" I think that is gold and should be included in the article, who said it ? It should go right up next to something like "There are many members of the general public who are deeply suspicious of the "corporate" nature of the pro-SOPA campaign" Yep, good pairing there. Penyulap   talk 07:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to separate the Supporters/Opponents into separate articles
Now that the debate over SOPA has largely died down, I think it might be time to remove the detailed sections on the supporters and opponents of the bill. There is too much space being taken up with that information, and it is presented in more detail than is required.

I think it should be changed to a short paragraph stating that the Content Industry supported it, and the Tech Industry opposed it largely, and that there were lawmakers on both sides that were in each camp. Additional information can be found in another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemonk (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea per WP:SUMMARY, but I don't think either section is egregiously long either. Ocaasit 23:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. We do not allow POV forks on Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not necessarily a POV fork, just a separate article on the debate itself.  That is a Content fork, not a POV fork.  Can someone create this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.166.18 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Page & Portal
I visit this page every now and then to get updates on the bills' positions. Twitter trends really helped. What I noticed is recently I haveencountered Internet rumors that SOPA and PIPA are shot down and ACTA is now coming into position. I noticed the text in this page was different than the last time I checked it. It leads to believe that SOPA has already passed, as the text might say. BTW I think it's GREAT that this page is semi-protected, we could get tricked by all the IP vandals modifying the current events page. However, I would also like to put it under the Censorship Portal and Human Rights Portal. BTW, I also want a yes or no answer: IS SOPA ALIVE OR DEAD?

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Re: Page & Portal
dear 'internet partner' the sopa/pipa are down (And we have to celebrate :D) and the acta is sadly (For The europeans) going around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.83.42 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Defamation!!!!!
Is this article considered defamation! @--WOLfan112 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you ask? What do you think is wrong with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes SOPA seem sooooooooooooo bad!--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It accurately describes the proposed legislation, and various responses to it. That's not bad. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you think of some good points it doesn't cover ? Penyulap   talk 18:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Needs more neutrality!--WOLfan112 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but we still need to think of things, and text, before we can add it. Any ideas ? Penyulap   talk 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't get anything to counter the negative stuff, I'm afraid there's not much one can do about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then someone needs to remove the "not neutral" tag.-- User WOLfan112  Talk  17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like WOLfan's approach. Doing now.  Sloggerbum  ( talk ) 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * THIS IS NOT A LEGAL THREAT. SO PLEASE STOP REPORTING ME TO ADMINISTRATORS.-- User WOLfan112  Talk  15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to worry about. If an admin thought this was a legal threat, you'd be blocked by now. But you're not. So please stop shouting. Reach Out to the Truth 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Date incorrectly displayed
I have noticed near the end of this article that someone has put a partial date! It is under the title "December 15 markup of the bill". This is no use to anyone because it only says December 15... December 15 1945? Ok, I am being a bit silly there because you could suggest that it is possible to see that it is obviously not 1945. The point I am making is that the reader should not have to try to work out what date it is. The date should be put in full ALWAYS. I can not change this entry because I do not know what date it is referring to. Do they mean 2012 or 2013? The whole point in reading the article is to learn about it. If I knew the date I would not be reading it in the first place.--Natharnio Armarnio (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources are messed up
Human Rights Watch is mentioned as one of the organizations opposing the bill; however the CNET article provided as source says "A few dozen civil-liberties and left-leaning advocacy groups from around the globe now are circulating their own letter (PDF), which says that "through SOPA, the United States is attempting to dominate a shared global resource." Signers include Bits of Freedom in the Netherlands, the Electronic Frontier Finland, Reporters Without Borders, and, in the United States, Free Press and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Notably absent are the two biggest such advocacy groups: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International."

Also, sources 148 and 149 have been mixed up with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.195.16 (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap  ☏  03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

SOPA similar to PIPA
Since we've had a pretty convinced anonymous edit warrior here, does anyone else see a problem with the language stating that SOPA is similar to PIPA? Every source I've seen that compares the two calls them similar (or something analogous), and I've added a source specifically to that effect, so I'm not really seeing the problem. Anyone else see one with it, or that the language needs to be changed? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While the two pieces of proposed legislation are not identical, reliable sources have certainly referred to them as similar -- some sources calling one "the House version" of the other, etc. It would be helpful if the IP would more clearly explain his/her concerns with the present language on this talk page, as I am not seeing proper justification in the brief edit summaries. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not identical in ANY WAY, and if you want to start making accusations of me being an "edit warrior" you should know that YOU were the first to undo my edit. What an abuse of power it is to undo my changes enforced by the bot after it the article was locked.

SOPA is legislation targeting and combating piracy. PIPA does not have that purpose. PIPA simply allows the federal government to notify private entities of security threats and compromises to it's electronic infrastructure. Ignorance on this topic is strange for a person who started an edit war to promote baseless rhetoric and has the privilege to edit locked articles. Feel free to visit the PIPA article to see what the bill actually is.

Show me ONE source where a person made that statement based on comparing the laws and finding language that was majorly similar to SOPA or vice versa. You can't - they are simply mislead empty OPINIONS stated as fact. VIIMach (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a reason we evaluate sources for reliability. The New York Times (as an example) does not need to exhaustively detail its fact-checking process for every article it prints in order for us to consider it reliable. Rather, we rely on their reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and correction of errors when discovered to presume that if they printed a fact, we can presume it correct. Now, of course, if multiple reliable sources do not agree on which position is correct, then we can't take one as correct&mdash;we state that the issue is in dispute and summarize the nature of the dispute, without "taking a side" or evaluating it ourselves. In this case, though, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that SOPA and PIPA are so similar as to be discussed interchangeably. I showed you more down with your edit request, and I could probably show you hundreds more that refer to SOPA and PIPA interchangeably or as extremely similar, and I've placed one quite reliable source (the Christian Science Monitor) that explicitly uses the "similar" language. Since that assertion can be clearly sourced, you need to show sources that dispute the similarity, not just keep arguing it. Even if I agreed with you personally, we go with what the sources say, we don't editorialize. I cannot find a single source that disputes the widespread assertion that the bills are similar and interchangeable, so if you have one, by all means provide it and we can talk about integrating it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Do any of those supposed sources review the law by it's specific language? No; They're just baseless opinions. And we're considering the NYT to be a reliable source? Wow, journalistic standards a pretty low here.

My point is that the bill itself is not similar to SOPA. If you just read the bill, you'd see. If that's perhaps too long, you can read these summaries at the LOC website.

Here's the one for SOPA: <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@L&summ2=m&

Notice this language: Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

and this:

Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription.

Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of: (1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and (2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application.

Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act.

Show me where any of this language or similar language is found within PIPA - not baseless statements without fact. I'd like to see this article written on the basis of the actual text of the law rather than journalistic opinion.

The burden of proof rests on those who disagree now.

PIPA LOC Summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00968:@@@L&summ2=m&

SOPA Legislation Online Copy: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:/ PIPA Legislation Online Copy: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112vZcG1c::/

VIIMach (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * VIIMach, I moved your comment up here, since it concerns the discussion on the issue and the edit request section was already resolved. I hope you don't mind, I'd just like to keep the entire discussion in one thread for ease of reference. As to reading the two bills, that would constitute original research. As it so happens, I have read both bills, in several of their iterations as they went through the process. You'll note I've carefully refrained from offering my opinion in the matter, because for the purposes of editing the article, my opinion doesn't matter. I'm not a reliable source, neither are you, and we do not allow original research or original study and interpretation of primary sources as the basis for article content. If you think all these sources that are saying they are the same are wrong in doing so, contact them. If they publish corrections/retractions, by all means, we'll consider that when writing the article. But your own interpretation matters just as much as mine does&mdash;which is to say, not at all. If the sources discussing the matter show a strong consensus that the bills are similar, as they clearly do both explicitly and by discussing them as interchangeable, we follow that consensus of sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So some journalists' opinions trump what the bill actually says? That's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIIMach (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you can find a reliable published source saying "Hey, these aren't similar at all!", we'd certainly look at integrating that in. But yes, since we require strict neutrality, we do not editorialize or insert our own opinions into articles. The sources override your interpretation of what the bill says, as it's clear from the source volume that many people disagree with your interpretation, and it's clear from the lack of sources saying otherwise that not many agree. (And believe me, journalists and academics alike love to poke one another for being in error.) Does that explain why the article is as it is to your satisfaction? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This -> "Show me where any of this language or similar language is found within PIPA" has not been addressed. I just don't see the evidence that they are similar in any way just by looking at the two bills side by side. VIIMach (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeating myself again, since we seem to have reached a bit of an impasse, I'll request a third opinion from a previously uninvolved editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I cannot give a Third Opinion (note upper case here) under the auspices of the Third Opinion Project because I have had previous dealings with Seraphimblade. That does not mean, however, that I cannot give a (note lower case here) third opinion independent of that project. Here 'tis: This is a matter controlled by Wikipedia policy. The Verifiability policy says, "'Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. ... This principle has been historically and notably expressed on this policy page as 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth'. ... When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.'"The fact that you do not see the evidence, VIIMach, when you compare the bills is essentially irrelevant to the way Wikipedia works; it is that which has been reported in reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, that determines whether or not something can be in Wikipedia. That's not to say that everything which is verifiable should go in Wikipedia; there are things which are published in reliable sources which are so unrelated to reality — truth, if you will — that they cannot go in or can go in only as a minor reference, but the way that those things are determined is to show that the great weight of what is said in reliable sources contradicts those things. (See WP:FRINGE for more background on that issue.) Seraphimblade is exactly right: if SOPA and PIPA are as dissimilar as you believe, then there should be a huge mass of references in reliable sources contradicting the sources which say that they are. Once you produce proof that such a mass of sources exists, then the conflict of opinions may be described in the article, but your personal opinion of whether they are similar or dissimilar is irrelevant and trying to get it into an article will be prohibited by the No original research policy. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) One more word: I don't want to leave the impression that what you're trying to do, VIIMach, is a bad thing, it's just not the way we do things here. This essay might help you understand where we're coming from here and might help you decide what you would like to do here. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012
Please remove language stating PIPA is similar to SOPA and vice versa. The source provided is a link to a commentary article that does not compare language, intentions, and functions of the bill explicitly, but rather mislead opinion and rhetoric.

Source statement in context:

Q. What is Congress trying to accomplish?

A. The two main bills are the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, in the Senate, and the similar Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House. There are already laws on the books to combat domestic websites trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods, but little to counter foreign violators.

The bills would allow the Justice Department, and copyright holders, to seek court orders against foreign websites accused of perpetrating or facilitating copyright infringement. While there is little the United States can do to take down those websites, the bills would bar online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as credit card companies and PayPal from doing business with an alleged violator. It also would forbid search engines from linking to such sites.

As you can plainly see, the statement is an empty one. The author doesn't refer to specific text from either pieces of legislation. The first sentence in the second paragraph is also simply not factual. SOPA is the only bill in which the above functions are outlined; not PIPA.

VIIMach (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this edit request (though I will not decline it since I'm involved in the debate). This source from PCWorld discusses SOPA and PIPA as the same thing: . This one from Forbes does as well: . And CNet: . These are hardly fly-by-night or unreliable sources, and I could list dozens more that clearly treat the bills as equivalent or extremely similar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved editor, I'll close as per Seraphimblade.  FloBo   A boat that can float!  12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories
There have been recent edits attempting to replace the existing Category:Internet access with the Subcategory:Internet censorship in the United States, with the most recent edit summary stating: In reality, there have been a lot of allegations and speculation about "censorship", but the bill has not been "very widely described as censorship" by reliable sources. The current president of the U.S. has been "widely described" as being a secret Muslim, or a native of Kenya, but we do not append such categories to the article as if these disputed allegations were facts. "Internet access" is an indisputably applicable category; "Internet censorship" is not. And even less so when "...in the United States" is added to the category description, and applied to an article that states, "[the bill] targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity". Xenophrenic (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (rv good faith edit; This is very widely described as censorship. Not every kind of censorship is necessarily bad; it can mean suppression of communication that is objectively harmful.)
 * The difference between calling SOPA "censorship" and calling Barack Obama "a secret Muslim" is that the first is a mainstream view, whereas the second is WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia article describes it as occurring "in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property." Censorship is in fact pretty difficult to define, but as long as we present a definition, it makes sense to use that for categories. SOPA has been protested as censorship by such organizations as Google, Wired, and Wikipedia . President Barack Obama has not been charged with being a secret Muslim or Kenyan outside of the marginal extreme, so the proposed analogy you're making is very much off.
 * Regarding your last point, SOPA is a distinctly American project. Category Internet access is quite broad and includes things like "Broadband", "Mobile Internet" and "Wi-Fi"; this would be the relevant subcategory (If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second.) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the considered reply. To your specific points in order, one man's fringe theory is another man's "mainstream view". The allegations that this bill is "censorship" are indeed numerous enough to appear to be mainstream, and almost as numerous as the allegations about the President's citizenship (a third of all Americans; 60% of all Republicans, etc., depending on which polls and surveys you reference - not a "marginal extreme").  But as noted at the WP:FRINGE link, material likely to be challenged (and the claims that this bill amounts to censorship are strongly challenged) needs to be reliably sourced to high-quality, independent secondary sources. Which brings us to your second point, that the Wikipedia article on Censorship includes wording about the "protection of intellectual property" in its description. I don't know the extent of your familiarity with Wikipedia's (and the Wikipedia editor community's) involvement with the protests and the spread of allegations regarding these proposed bills, so I'll simply say yeah, it sure does say that, ever since the advent of the PIPA & SOPA bills, and not a moment before.  Same with the Internet censorship article. There are reasons why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for assertion of fact.  Let me know if you need me to go into more detail on that. Your link to the ABC News article notes that opponents of the legislation make the "censorship" claim, and does not assert it as fact -- ABC is even careful enough to use the word in scare quotes. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that judgments such as "mainstream" vs. "fringe" refer to expert opinions, not the American population, two only partly overlapping sets. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the Talk section?
Wikipedia, you state: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act, or any other aspect of politics whatsoever. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." The article is about a House Bill, which is de facto political. Therefore, the article is political, as could be any associated Talk. Therefore, I have a little trouble understanding your position. If you had requested that unsubstantiated personal opinions not be included, I would be in full agreement, but that is not what you stated.67.170.238.175 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the note is worded quite like that, but general Wikipedia policy regarding article talk pages is generally quite clear: they are intended solely for discussions directly related to article content. They aren't intended for general discussions about the article subject. If you want to discuss proposals concerning the content of our article on the Stop Online Piracy Act, this is the place to do it - though bear in mind that there are policies concerning what may or may not be included etc. If you want to talk about the merits or otherwise of the Stop Online Piracy Act itself, you will need to find a forum elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected?
In the past 3 weeks, this article has receive 3 nonsense / malicious edits by IP addresses, plus a few more by people who have established Wikimedia names. Two of the nonsense edits were reverted in seconds by bots; the other waited just over 5 hours for a human to revert it.

The article needs updating, but I doubt if semi-protection will have much impact on whether and when this happens. DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category: Internet censorship in the United States?
In two recent edits, User:Jarble added "Category:Internet censorship in the United States" to this article, and User:Xenophrenic reverted that addition.

Could we have some discussion of this? I think this article is better with that categorization, and I'm sorry to see it reverted. The stated purpose of SOPA may not include censorship, that is its practical import. The primary message to me of Free Culture (book) is that the primary impact of the changes in copyright law in since the 1970s has been to stifle competition for the major media conglomerates in the US. This was achieved by extended the grounds for copyright suit to "derivative works" defined so vaguely that it invites Strategic lawsuits against public participation, e.g., against college students for improving search engines used only internally to universities and against attorneys and investors in new technology that could threaten the hegemony of major media companies. As noted in Free Culture (book), these suits were all settled in favor of the plaintiffs, because the defendants all knew that even if they officially won the lawsuit in court, it would probably cost them $1 million in legal fees that they could never recover.

Similarly, the most vigorous comics industry in the world is in Japan, because the Japanese culture makes it practically impossible for copyright holders to sue under Japanese copyright law modeled after the vague US standard: Japanese comics compete with different authors producing variations on themes previously published by others, which would likely be considered "derivative works" and therefore copyright infringements. However, as I understand Free Culture (book), copyright holders sense that if they tried to enforce these provisions of the law, they could lose more than they gain. The result, as I mentioned, is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", the states purpose of Copyright law of the United States, which is however thwarted by changes in copyright law of the US, according to Free Culture (book).

This, to me, is a form of censorship, which is why I support adding "Category:Internet censorship in the United States" to this article. Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What matters is not whether individual contributors consider it censorship, but whether published reliable sources do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump and DavidMCEddy: Time Magazine and ABC News have both published articles that characterized SOPA as a bill that would promote Internet censorship. The links to these articles can be found here and here. Jarble (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A closer read of the sources indicates that opponents of the bill have tried to characterize it as potentially promoting censorship (note the Time article quotes Google and Tumblr execs in opposition to the bill, and the ABC article only asks the "Censorship?" question, while noting that opponents characterize it that way). Please see the previous related discussion above: Categories. It also seems relevant to note the most recent version of the bill had the DNS filtering provisions scrubbed from it during a Manager's Revision, and that filtering was what opponents were citing when they tried to claim censorship concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms
Not a word about Aaron Swartz activism against SOPA??? What is this place become? A place for republican creationist flat earthers who use wikipedia to indoctrinate people into thinking everything is fine, no criticism needed anywhere? Disgusting beyond words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.233.37 (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Stop Online Piracy Act
Cyberbot II has detected links on Stop Online Piracy Act which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Stop Online Piracy Act
Cyberbot II has detected links on Stop Online Piracy Act which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)