Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Petition Asks White House to Probe MPAA's Chris Dodd Over Warning

More than 5,000 signees are asking the White House to investigate comments made by MPAA chief executive Chris Dodd, who warned in an exclusive interview with Fox News that politicians who failed to back anti-piracy legislation could see Hollywood dollars dry up. Dodd's words, coming at the end of the week that saw two MPAA-backed bills -- the so-called PIPA and SOPA measures -- battered by nationwide protests and defections by formerly supportive politicians, amount to bribery. http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/petition-asks-white-house-probe-mpaas-chris-dodd-over-warning-34661 Mcreallily (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

O'Reilly Media resource, and others

from Portal:Current events/2012 January 18 ... Protests against Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act:

• Several major websites, including Reddit and the English Wikipedia, undergo blackouts in protest against controversial internet legislation proposed by the United States Congress. The two pieces of legislation in question are designed to combat online piracy, but are feared to inadvertently threaten online innovation and freedom of speech. (New York Times)
• A number of American lawmakers, including SOPA co-sponsor Marco Rubio, withdraw their support for the SOPA proposal. (BBC) (O'Reilly Radar) (Washington Post)"

99.181.155.14 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputes and discussion

If you're not sure where to put a new neutrality issue, don't worry, just click to add a new section. Someone will organize it later if they like, it's all good.

Organized in no particular (sloppy) order... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Should we still keep the tag? I think the hoopla over the SOPA protests has died down, making it easier for more neutral-minded editors to fix up the WP:NPOV issues. Ilov90210 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep!, each of the separate disputes, and there's more than one, has to be found and addressed first. You need to either get the problems mentioned fixed or state that you don't consider them a problem, there needs to be clear resolution on each of them first. Penyulap _talk 16:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV / Keeping COI in check

If you're going to edit this article and you're an opponent of the bill, please use extra mental focus to ensure your edits adhere to policy regarding NPOV and COI. I don't have all day to sit here and edit, but I'll give you one major epitome point that demonstrates bias... The lede of the article stated that the bill would "criminalize illicit streaming". This is a perfect example of the biased propaganda that riddles this article. It's already illegal to abuse copyrighted material. It's called Copyright Law. People love to point out the horrid reality of everybody going to prison if the bill was passed. THE 5-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE ALREADY EXISTS. It's at the start of every single recorded film and TV show you've ever rented, labeled "FBI WARNING". People are already engaging in federally illegal behavior by posting, streaming, etc., copyrighted material. You can't bend the article with suppositions that people would be going to jail if the bill were passed, while leaving out that an exact clone is already in place yet just not adapted to the digital world. It's not happening now because it's not being enforced, even though the laws already exist. Not even the worst offenders are being handled right now. People stream and dish out copyrighted material illegally everywhere you go. It's all over the place. I'm not trying to bicker about the subject matter, I'm offering this particular point of an example of how people are using facts to show their point of view. The very existence of this article on an encyclopedia claiming that parties with conflict of interest should not be allowed to present information as if it was objective, is hypocritical, to say the least. Squish7 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This article mentions the bill's sponsor as "(Republican)" written out fully after his name, unlike the PIPA article which simply says "Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)." Minimizing the fact that SOPA is a DEMOCRAT bill while playing up the fact that PIPA is a Republican bill is flagrant partisan hackery and should be corrected at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.35 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

err, which way is which article meant to be to fix this ? Penyulap _talk 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be (R-ST)98.66.57.163 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Lead

The lead was just changed and now seems to no longer be a NPOV. All the sourced material that was previously there was removed and replaced with was looks like direct criticism of the bill. Is there consensus it should be changed back until a better lead can be proposed? Mikel (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the not-NPOV, but didn't realise it had been changed drastically and therefore have made edits to correct this. I would support a change back. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed back for now Mikel (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Mikel. For starters, further on in the article it quotes someone claiming "Sites that host user content—like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter—have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation." The lede clearly reflects the rest of the article only selectively. There is also a great deal of material that has not been included in this article in favour of material that advances the case against the bill. For example, a practicing IP attorney who also lectures at the Columbia University School of Law has debunked the "go after YouTube" trope. The views of persons who are authorities on intellectual property law have been neglected while giving ample space to airing the opinions of those who have not evidenced familiarity with the legislation.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(inserted response to inserted text above) Hi Brian, that section was a bit hard to summarize, I'd love your help there, as you can see from a quick read of it there is a bloke who said people have nothing to fear and someone else who said and did some things that are even more significant, or at least as significant, he said "This bill does not make it a felony for a person to post a video on YouTube of their children singing to a copyrighted song." which people would find interesting also, but the interesting thing is the hypocrisy there, and his cover-up of his own use of infringing material, that is also interesting. So balancing all that out is interesting indeed, any suggestions ? Penyulap _talk 09:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is to not present as undisputed claims that are disputed.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry i don't understand you, can you rephrase ? Penyulap _talk 03:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x 2) Hi Mikel, The lede is meant to summarize the article, a good read about that is at WP:lede. References don't really need to go into the lede at all, you can leave them in the rest of the article where the material is discussed in depth. This helps make the lead clearer and easier to read. I would like to know what parts you do not like so we can change them, please do keep in mind that the lead isn't meant to be one section or the other from the article, it's meant to be a summary. Penyulap _talk 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You need references when what you write is disputed, and I'm disputing. Revert yourself if you refuse to source. Why did you delete the (sourced) information I added about the bill being taken up again in February? I try to show respect for others' contributions by providing explanations when I remove them, regardless of how small the removal, and whenever possible I try to preserve part when a part can be preserved.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(inserted response to inserted text above)Hi Brian, sorry I missed your response at first scan of the talkpage, references are not required to be in the lead itself, they can be included elsewhere, in places where the material is handled in greater depth. There are actually alternative templates to use for the lead, rather than the usual citation needed template, there are ones that say not referenced in body of article or some such. Also did I delete something by accident or did I move it, I attempted to simply move everything to the overview section of elsewhere, please do check for it, or just give me the full text, or just pop it in yourself as you please. Penyulap _talk 09:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote from the appropriate Wikipedia policy re references not being required when what is claimed is disputed?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry it took me a while to find where you popped your comment, Umm, I think what we are looking for is not that a cite is not required, but that it's not required in the lead when the lead is a summary of the article. It still needs cites, but that goes in the body. Have a read of Template:Citation needed (lead) this, it will get you started on the search, plus, it'll make you look fabulously smart in the use of templates in the other articles you visit. I was impressed first time I saw it, after seeing the usual citation needed template so often. Penyulap _talk 03:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I kindof have to take the blame because I changed the format when I saw all the editors having such trouble with the unwieldy size of the article wanting to split it, you see I work primarily on the ISS which is a humungus article, bigger than this one by far, and I can edit reasonably so I figured on helping transition the article and the editors from small article to huge article styles. Like that. Penyulap _talk 03:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead itself hasn't been changed on it's own, nothing has been deleted from it, it's been moved to other sections of the article. So it's still there, this was proposed on the talkpage first, in another section, I am all for changing it, but lets keep in mind that long sections that are verbatim repeated in the rest of the article aren't a great idea, that'd be a problem too. Easier to work out what you want in the lead and what belongs elsewhere. Penyulap _talk 18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm all for a new lead but it seems this one needs quite a few fixes before its ready. Summarized a few things below.

First paragraph:

I think the first sentence of the old lead provided a necessary information about the bills history that other bill's articles contain. Particularly the removal of "also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors." seems to take away from the article. -Mikel

(inserted text) it's in the overview, right under the lead. is that ok ? -pen

Second paragraph:

Leading with "User-content websites such as YouTube would be greatly affected" seems like a very specific example for the lead of the article and seems to be closer to an opinion and should probably be prefaced with "Concern has been expressed" or "opponents state" like some of the other sentences. -Mikel

(inserted text) it's just a rough summary, just have a quick look over the article itself, and then summarize it as you see fit. -pen

"In a 1998 law", probably should be more specific and include a name and link -Mikel

(inserted text) I think it mentions that further on, but by all means do, I think you could link the part where it mentions 'safe harbor' what do you think ? -pen

"SOPA would bypass this "safe harbor" provision by placing the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself." Saying it would bypass the safe harbour seems to be a more serious accusation then is made in the entire sourced section in the main article. This should probably be softened as well to remain NPOV. -Mikel

(inserted text) cool. -pen

"The US president and legislators suggest it may kill innovation." This could probably be expressed better as "some legislators" or even "many legislators" and US president would probably be better expressed as "the white house administration" or similar. The sentence as it stands seems to imply universal opposition, not strong opposition.

(inserted text) cool. -pen

"Representatives of the American Library Association state the changes could encourage criminal prosecution of libraries." Again very specific example, could we find something more general? -Mikel

(inserted text) I think it's pretty good as a specific example though, don't you ? I mean, it needs to keep the reader awake and all. -pen

"Other opponents state that requiring search engines to delete a domain name begins a worldwide arms race of unprecedented censorship of the Web and violates the First Amendment." This seems to be a fine NPOV but defiantly needs to be worded more appropriately

Mikel (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Was just a rough summary of the article, I guess it can be qualified by saying who said it, or just kill it, either way, I don't actually care really, I just thought the old lead needed help in a big way, after reading the concerns so many editors had with it on the talkpage. At least now it won't cause strokes. :) Penyulap _talk 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Never seen a more biased article on wiki than this

This article is so biased that it makes wiki's supposed preference for neutrality a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part do you think is the worst of all ? Penyulap _talk 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, when I eat crap, I don't mush it around in my mouth for hours to make sure I've identified the worst tasting part of it. The example I've given above covers it in a microcosm. Squish7 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the article is biased. The only thing I would like to see different is that the White House not be listed under opposition because they didn't specifically say that. They said that they would be opposed to any legislation that created censorship..etc. Otherwise, it (SOPA) is a topic that is well documented in this article with every happening, every opinion, timelined events, and outcomes. If there isn't more information available from supporters or creators out there on the Bill, or anything other than what is already listed through media accounts on why it is positive, then how can it be in the article? It seems that every possible piece of information on SOPA has been included in the article, including its noble intent. The article may seem bias to someone who supports SOPA because so much action was taken against the legislation...but that action was documented here the same as the action for it, the lists of supporters/opponents, and eventual outcome. Using commone sense, when the Sponsor of a Bill withdraws it for further consideration and rewrites, then it goes hand in hand with there being lots of information available on how it may have been flawed...and not as much evidence on its virtues. Petersontinam (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick chop and popped the whitehouse into the middle, neither for nor against. Penyulap _talk 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap- ref #'s 102 and 103..is that how they are supposed to be seen? I tried to find them to see, but couldn't. Thanks. Petersontinam (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Refs are my weakpoint and that section wasn't mine, I did a fast fix though, should work now. Penyulap _talk 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At least you found them :) Good job on everything! Petersontinam (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I knew it would be, even a zombie could have figured out that it would be bias. The internet is aflame with anti-Sopa and Wiki's "neutrality" was put o hold to shutdown and protest. The article is aj oke, but it's no surprise given the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality (#2)

This article is very biased.. and unworthy of inclusion as an encyclopedia article as written. And, conveniently enough.. it can't be edited. Very, very, very disappointing. SOPA supporter (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to point out where it is biased? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, SOPA supporter, that it's biased (especially with the lede rewrite that was a dozen hours ago or so) but a constructive suggestion might be to look at previous versions of the article under (View history) and noting historical versions that had parts that were better in your view than those current parts. Other editors could take the same look and come to a conclusion. At the moment your complaint is too broad to support specific actions that would remedy. One thing I believe you can comfort yourself with is that when a strong bias is apparent, readers can pick up on that and will adopt a more skeptical stance towards the POV being presented. In other words, when someone comes to an article and gives it an obvious slant, it will often backfire in terms of moving reader opinion.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it's only banned to non-autoconfirmed users, that means if you've been editing Wikipedia for a certain amount of time, you can edit the article. It just means you can't create an account from scratch and edit it, or edit it from an IP without an account. It's not a conspiracy. Squish7 (talk)

For starters, the article focuses on its disadvantages from every single point, and not even the "Goals" are 100% unbiased. RandomAnon 04:43, 20 January 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.99.32 (talk)

The (new) lead just has a summary of the article. The old lead used unapproachable language, nothing out of the old lead was deleted, it's simply been moved, mostly to the overview section. Is there something that needs coverage in the lead ? How can it be improved ? pick anything in the article that needs to be in the lead, be my guest. Penyulap _talk 08:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Take this passage:

Supporters of the bill include the Motion Picture Association of America, pharmaceuticals makers, media businesses and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They say it protects the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites.[2] They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.[8]

Opponents claim that it violates the First Amendment,[9] is Internet censorship,[10] will cripple the Internet,[11] and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.[9][12]

The pure math of the number of references here reveals WP bias. The claims of the "opponents" are listed like machine gun fire, citing 5 references as opposed to 2 for the other side, listing the points last to boot, serving more as a conclusion than something that's debatable. It utterly violates NPOV. It's easy to see when others are biased when you don't have an opinion about a matter, but it's a vicious sin to mangle other people's arguments just because you're in the position to report your side of the story.

In short, its very existence here demolishes the spirit WP:COI policy. It generally doesn't matter how you argue whether the article is NPOV or not if you agree that people with strong attachment to the subject matter shouldn't be allowed to edit related articles. It's a double edged sword. If Wikipedia as a whole has a strong bias for a topic, by its own rules, it collectively isn't objective enough to be hosting and controlling such an article Squish7 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the "math" would denote a bias, all it means is that evidence for everything stated is split up differently in the references for and against the act itself. I think Wikipedia does have the ability to be neutral on this, even if Wikipedia itself opposes it. Remember, the articles are primarily written by the users, their views, and the references they provide, not Wikipedia staff.--99.224.196.70 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How about combining this idea with this idea and having the lede section make equal sized summaries as far as approximate real estate goes, with better organized sections in the body (table of contents overhaul). So it would get say a paragraph for each.? Penyulap _talk 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality violation

The article fails Neutrality as it is written from an American-centric point of view using American terminology. To translate for you the first sentence of the article, into what an Asian, Continental, or African reader would understand this sentence to mean would be something like "The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a United States invoice proposed by U.S. Ambassador Lamar S. Smith (Republican) to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online smuggling in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods." Like that. It needs to comply with the NPOV policy. Further, you can do it yourselves. Penyulap _talk 05:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

'Bill' is the term used in the US and this article is about US legislation; the term reflects common usage in the relevant demographic and has a precise meaning there. Also, the word bill is wikilinked, which provides non-us readers with an easy way to determine what is meant. Neutrality is a wonderful goal, but not at the sake of accuracy. Out of curiosity, what alternative would you prefer? (proposed law)? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think using wikilinks is a substitute for writing a good article, and it won't allow the article to comply with policy. The article should stand on it's own as a well written article. It doesn't, as to the wording, I could make suggestions, however people have expressed dislike at my suggested wording to fix this violation, and so you'll need to work out the wording yourselves. I will tell you if it no longer strongly violates policy. Penyulap _talk 18:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no neutrality issue with the wording. We have another guideline called WP:ENGVAR. We can't possibly add each and every international variation of what a "bill" is. We use what is prevalent in the country that is being discussed. And systematically calling it something that it is not, confuses the issue even more.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a neutrality issue with the wording. It's not about ENG:VAR, and OMG I am so glad too. that one is the biggest headache in the universe, but we have no problem here with ENG:VAR. The policy I'm referring to, surprisingly mentions me by name. Here I'll quote

---

From the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ (well,mostly)

Anglo-American focus

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view ?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. (Like SOPA, where the proposed impact is worldwide.) The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and Penyulap. But rather than introducing his own cultural bias, Penyulap should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that he encounters, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on, because Penyulap works on Wikipedia in more than a dozen languages.

---

See ? Did I cut'n'Paste ok ? hmm maybe a word or two is changed.

Anyhow, first word here is "Bill" it makes no sense to many readers as I've mentioned. If you like, I can help wherever I see problems, or not, as you please. Penyulap _talk 09:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag removed

Now, on reviewing this article, I cannot see any clear evidence that this article is non-neutral. Hence I have removed the tag.

The tag may be reinstated, however reinstatement must be accompanied by:

• A clear catalog of the specific content in THIS article that is deemed "non-neutral".
• A suggested framework for rectifying the lack of neutrality.

Wikipedia's stance on SOPA does not have ANY relevance to the neutrality (or lack thereof) within this article. The neutrality of the content is the ONLY subject for discussion.

I acknowledge that many people are upset about Wikipedia's actions on this matter, however sticking a "Neutrality" tag on this article is not the appropriate method by which to voice your opposition. Manning (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a top notch article. It has morphed into an editor masterpiece. The only thing worrisome is listing the White House under "opposition" as they are realistically neutral. Petersontinam (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The line about US consumers importing Canadian drugs is prejudicial to SOPA supporters, in my view. US readers are going to be easily turned against the bill by this line and while it may be true that the argument was advanced is it a central argument advanced by many supporters? You don't take the other side's worst argument (in the eyes of the audience) and say in the lede that's what they are arguing for. This should be moved to lower down in the article or otherwise weighted appropriately. Also, the LA Times reported that that some Hollywood moguls have turned against Obama, which means he's effectively seen as on the other side of the issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm Australian so I'm slightly removed from all this. I read that line and felt it cast SOPA supporters in a positive light, and raised legitimate questions about Google's motivation for opposing SOPA. (Not sure how Americans might interpret it, but that's my $0.02). However, I was only able to find one RS that cited this example in discussions of SOPA. If there are more (that I missed) then fine, otherwise Brian Dell has a valid point. Manning (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I'm undecided on SOPA and I'm undecided on whether Wikipedia should have blacked out. So my observations on this, right or wrong, are not clouded by my own biases. But when I read this article during the blackout, I was shocked at how slanted it is—the article violates WP:Balance, giving far more attention to reasons sources give for opposition to SOPA than to reasons sources give for advocating it (and occasionally using biased wording). Roughly speaking, here is the breakdown:

Lede:

The lede claims that "The bill would criminalize streaming of content". No, but presumably it would criminalize streaming of copyvio content. -Duoduoduo

(inserted text) that's from the overview section. -penyulap

The lede claims that "In practice user-content websites such as Youtube would be greatly effected [sic] and websites like Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo all seemed likely to shut down if the bill becomes law." Utterly POV. -Duoduoduo

(inserted text) that's from the Websites that host user content section -penyulap

The lede says "Lobbyists claim it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue. The US president, and legislators suggest it may kill innovation." No, there are lobbyists on both sides, and there are legislators on both sides. Saying that "lobbyists" advocate SOPA (given that "lobbyists" is often used, at least in America, as a derogatory term) but not mentioning that other lobbyists oppose SOPA, is advocacy against it. And saying that supporters "claim" whereas opponents "suggest" is advocacy against it. -Duoduoduo

(inserted text) that's from the opposition section, lobbyist should be removed if it is a derogatory term, who are the people, whats a better name ? -penyulap

Overview: "Supporting the bill are lobbyists representing....They claim it protects...." with no mention that some non-lobbyists support it. In contrast, in the next paragraph "Opponents claim...." with no mention of lobbyists. Other than that, this section seems balanced. -Duoduoduo

(inserted text) that was moved out of the lead, just point out that there are people on both sides, and remove the term lobbyist, unless you look at the reference, I think that IS the term that is being used, so you'd just quote that source, say who it was that used that term. -penyulap

Goals: 20 lines stating the position of supporters.

Impact on online freedom of speech: 20 lines: 17 anti-SOPA, and 3 pro-SOPA.

Impact on websites: 83 lines: 68 anti, 15 pro.

Impact on web-browsing software: 4 lines, all anti.

Potential effectiveness: 7 lines, all anti.

Technical issues: 41 lines: 40 anti, 1 neutral.

Transparency in enforcement: 3 lines: all anti.

Supporters: 26 lines, all pro.

Opposition: 76 lines, all anti.

Legislative history: 28 lines: 18 anti, 2 pro, 8 neutral.

This breakdown is nowhere near 50/50, even though neither the pro nor the anti position is fringe. So I'm putting the neutrality-questioned tag back up. Please don't take it down again until the above issues of wording and balance have been rectified. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't necessarily need to have a even number of for and against lines but the concerning part is the number of sections that seem to be devoted solely to criticism such as the 'impact on' sections. I think the best solution would be to eventually be merge them into the criticisms section and split most of it off into a new criticisms article and leave the biggest points in the criticisms section Mikel (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's not a matter of the lead says this and the lead says that, it's a matter of the article says this and the article says that. The lead is simply a summary of the article. It's not in any way appropriate to ignore wp:lede because dealing with the article as a whole is too difficult. It can be done, and I'll help you for a while at least. Penyulap _talk 18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The counting up of point for or against isn't the idea that wiki goes for on Neutrality. If there is just like one person who proposed the bill in the first place, you mention what they said and when and so forth, and for each supporter you do that too. Make sure each person is notable, so the nobrainer way to do that at the moment, is find a big media organization talking about them. Then you do that for opposition as well. If there are 10 notable people speaking for it, and 100 against it, so long as they are all notable and referenced, it's all good. You don't draw up conclusions or anything like that, you don't declare any winner or loser or repeat the 10 people 3 times each to balance out the rest, you just make a fair summary of each persons(or company or whatever) statement. Penyulap _talk 19:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Again I would refer interested editors to WP:Balance. In particular, it says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Both viewpoints are highly prominent, but I find it inconceivable that anyone could read this article all the way through and not get the very strong impression that it is unbalanced toward one point of view.

In fact, there were many people who proposed the bill, and many who opposed it. Why devote the vast majority of the article to the many who opposed it, and a small minority of the article to the many who favored it? Why not the other way around?--because then the article would rightly be labeled as non-neutral. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, prominent so we don't include nobodies and their personal blogs. If there is someone who is personally involved, like the person who wrote the bill, there'd be something of an exception for their personal blog however. Is there a particular person or group whose viewpoint you feel is getting too much coverage or too little ? Penyulap _talk 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The numbers probably reflect that there are indeed many prominent people and organizations speaking out against the bill. If you can find any prominent organizations supporting it, then by all means pop them right in ! Penyulap _talk 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about the topic to be able to contribute knowledgeably to the article. I came to it to learn about something I don't know much about, and the article helps me very much in learning one side of the debate and very little in helping me learn the other side. Given the large number of organizations that the article does mention as supporting SOPA, I have a really hard time believing that not a lot of people have come out with reasons. E.g., are there no public statements to the effect that performing artists' royalties are diminished by such-and-such an amount per year due to pirating, etc., etc.? My feeling is that there simply hasn't been as much desire on the part of editors thus far to track down as much about the support as about the opposition. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your feeling is probably right, there are most likely a lot of people who are outraged and don't like the bill and want to edit. Then there are a lot of companies that are also outraged and want to speak out about it. I think it is a classic case of the 99% and the 1%. There are article sections for support, and they're not empty and people can add as they choose. Maybe it takes a PR company to use some employees to overbalance the article, I dunno. Don't care, nothing else to do. But yeah, just find (I almost feel like saying 'make up') some figures and pop them in. Thing is, there are actually a lot of artists who get ripped off by the very companies who are supporting these laws as well, so there is that to be considered too. There may be a missing list of artists who are for, or against, SOPA. Penyulap _talk 21:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

At the top of this article it says the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Of course it is disputed! What idiot can't see that. When wikipedia decides to turn off in a few hours as a protest against SOPA the neutrality of this article was always going to be disputed. I didn't even read the article because I cannot trust ANYTHING that is written in it. Which genius thought up this crazy plan and why have the wikipedia community agreed to the 24 hour blackout? I propose that this article be deleted as it is totally biased against SOPA. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you charge it's "totally" biased when you haven't read it? It does present the pro-SOPA side as well, cited with reliable, neutral sources.--JayJasper (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean that it's not biased? It is biased. There is a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia intends to shut itself down in 9 hours in complaint against SOPA. How the hell can the article not be biased?58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They had some big vote, it turned out they want to shut down wiki. If you didn't vote to stop it, I personally blame you, well, and me, I didn't vote either. but I'm going to guess that's probably in the article. Maybe it's worth a read, it may answer your questions, if not, ask some more, so it can be considered for inclusion. Penyulap _talk 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You blame me for wikipedia ignoring its own NPOV policy? How am I supposed to know about the arcane vote decided by a minority that nobody outside of wikipedia knows about? I will make a suggestion to improve the "neutrality" of the article. Rewrite the entire first paragraph as it is clearly biased against SOPA.58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article (well some) it answers your question. It's in the article. We can't make you read it however. Penyulap _talk 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Answers my question? Since when? The problem is that the entire reliability of this article is called into question because of wikipedia's protest. Thus, this page must be deleted as it is full of inaccuaracies and bias.58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part is the worst for readability, I'll be happy to fix it if you point it out. Penyulap _talk 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For a start it can state that wikipedia is against SOPA and this should be stated at the very beginning at the opening paragraph so that readers can remember how biased wikipedia is.58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is apparently against SOPA, sure, but are you suggesting all the individual editors who wrote this article are also against it and are incapable of writing neutrally? "Wikipedia" as an entity may be against SOPA, but its editors have no obligation to support that. If you have an issue with the article you need to be more specific, rather than throwing around accusations against individuals that write it (direct or otherwise). Яehevkor ✉ 21:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand? The opening paragraph should state clearly that wikipedia opposes the SOPA. What difference does it make if individual editors can write neutrally? This article is compromised because of official actions taken by wikipedia as a whole. Otherwise, assuming that wikipedia even cares about its own NPOV policy (which it doesn't), this article should be deleted 58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, having a look at the lead, it's meant to summarize the whole article, and the wikipedia bit is very very small within the article, the article seems more about the act itself really, and less about wikipedia's response to it. The lead does mention there are protest actions going on, maybe looking at the amount of space in the lead given to a summary of the protest actions, and then looking at the section it is summarizing, I see in that section about 1/3 of the text relates to wikipedia, so maybe 1/3 of the sentence about protest actions in the lead might be justified, but considering it's not there already, I'm guessing some editors don't want it there. But to be fair to policy, certainly three or four words might be popped in to summarize that part of that section, Any ideas for alternate wording ? Penyulap _talk 22:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a change, but it's not really that prominent, considering how much is in the article, what do you think ? Penyulap _talk 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Make it more obvious. Have it as the opening sentence. There should be a whole paragraph stating how a handful of people voted to shut down wikipedia to protest about SOPA.58.6.44.60 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it says just English Wikipedia is blacked out, but isn't it actually Global ? I don't actually know. Penyulap _talk 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked your comment "You blame me for wikipedia ignoring its own NPOV policy? " no, not really specifically, I mean, I blamed myself too, the NPOV is trampled basically every minute of every day on wiki, it's a systemic failing of the governing body of wikipedia to embody Jimbo's original ideas. Meh, what ya gonna do ? But as for the article, it did seem rather silent in the lead concerning wikipedia, maybe editors are shy ? maybe it's a (I can't name the article) kind of thing where they are all afraid of retaliation ? who knows. So is there enough about wiki in the article ? Penyulap _talk 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This proves my point. Editors are shy of retaliation? Of course they would be. Criticising SOPA is wikipedia official policy.

The lead should include wikipedia's opposition to SOPA as disclosure to the reader. It shouldn't be somewhere down the page buried underneath masses of information, it should be featured prominently at the top, just as the banner opposing the SOPA is currently featured at the top. Wikipedia wants to indoctrinate readers to oppose SOPA and this is in line with wikipedia policy. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

re 'Wikipedia wants to indoctrinate readers to oppose SOPA' not me personally, I'm too busy trying to reprogram readers who think Houdini was a pioneer aviator, I think someone else is handling the SOPA brainwashing. I popped the wikipedia opposes sopa into the article, I can see that quite a few people are unhappy with the lede at the moment, so we can look at some improvements. Penyulap _talk 00:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I don't think there is really any way to put this article in a neutral light. WP:V is of utmost importance and all but a fringe of sources demonstrate that this bill is damaging. This isn't a bias, it is the facts. We can't bend over backwards to accommodate every liar, pressure group, and statistician; it's like trying to be fair to Holocaust deniers on the Holocaust article. Our sources are altogether quite clear that this is not differing opinions, this is the truth versus a bold-faced lie. I think common sense comes into play here. If someone can show me several independent analyses that refute the majority view, I will rescind my statement. Otherwise, let us conclude this issue.--Ipatrol (talk)

Lol. Why should I believe your anti-SOPA mantra? You recite wikipedia ideology which demonises the SOPA and you expect people to believe you? You say that citations in the body of the article prove that the bill is damaging? Of course it would! What else would it say? Contibutors aren't going to write anything positive about SOPA if it's official wikipedia policy to oppose it. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense ! If a monkey on a typewriter can write Shakespeare we can make the article neutral. My fingers aren't broken. I'll be happy to help. Penyulap _talk 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What viewpoint is not in the article, what would you like to see in the article exactly ? Penyulap _talk 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that WP:NPOV does not require us to present all possible opinions as equally valid. "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." 96.237.8.34 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is your viewpoint, if you can tell me, I can help you shove it into the article... Penyulap _talk 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Re 58.6.44.60 'anti-SOPA mantra?' 'What else would it say?' what would you like it to say, what is positive about the bill that the article doesn't cover ? what would you like included ? Penyulap _talk 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

There is obviously a lot of postive analysis out there but wikipedia policy prevents editors from including this in the article. So maybe I am setting an impossible task.58.6.44.60 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you say impossible ? Now I'm interested, what kind of material would you like to put in ? I'm starting to sound like a parrot here. If you want my help, you'll need to speak now or be blacked out very soon. Penyulap _talk 02:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read through this talk page and there's plenty of people who say the article is emphasising only one side of the argument. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to fix it as there wikipedia is breaking its own COI policy. The best that can be done is to have the disputed neutrality template permanently displayed at the top of the article. In that spirit, I request that the disputed neutrality tag never be removed. If this isn't done then wikipedia has no honour. LowStar (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I've being making edits to this page and, especially, the PIPA page that could be considered pro-SOPA/pro-PIPA. I've actually encountered less resistance than my editing on hot button pages usually does! This blackout thing is primarily the dubious idea of an activist Wikipedia leadership and the community just trusted the leadership's judgment enough to go along. Having said that, Wikipedia's editors do lean more libertarian or anti-[real or imagined]] censorship than the general population. But that lean is not so strong as to delete well established pro-SOPA facts WHEN these facts can be found. The main difficulty is that most of the pro-SOPA material was raised in Committee hearings etc that did not get much general media coverage.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why this commentor is receiving so much attention, given that the commentor has not read the article and is incapable of defending any significant accusations? I think it's clear enough that there is nothing of substance to respond to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.226.9 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

(inserted text) Because it's policy. There is no mechanism to force people to read articles or requirement that they do, it's commonly viewed as inhumane to force people to read wikipedia. Penyulap _talk 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

24.241.226.9 Because of Wikipedia's well known hatred of SOPA the burden of proof now lies on the wikipedia community to show that this SOPA article and ANY article or subject directly or indirectly related to it is NOT heavily biased. This is the new paradigm; get used to. LowStar (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

58.6.44.60 I have read many of your comments claiming neutrality. You cant claim something that YOU want, when you dint even read the article. Also be careful of your comments. There is a correct form to argument and contra-argument all requests, and you are not following that path, you are instead making this place becoming a forum. Stop defending the undefendable, because your arguments are poor and senseless. I recommend you to stop before you do an actual mess up. I totally agree with 24.241.226.9 (its the comment above me, he/she just forgot to sign), you are just weaselwording this page. Penyulap, dont waste your valuable time and just ignore the troll. Clearly he has no idea of how make a civilized request. Also its request its senseless, the article its very neutral, and the Blackout (now its done), has nothing to do with the neutrality or not of the article. You make a request recently 58.6.44.60, I have a more reasonable request, I propose that your comments must be deleted as you are incapable of making any meaningful arguments and acussations. Any further improper comments will be automatically deleted. --190.23.108.248 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose your proposal there, it's against policy. Anyhow, his concerns have been incorporated into the article now, that's pretty much the function of the talkpage. I've done that, based on 58.6.44.60's suggestions, added material to the article. That whole using the 'T' word will get you into big trouble if someone tells their mommy on you, so probably better to watch your language there. Penyulap _talk 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

190.23.108.248 Don't lecture to me about using this talk page as a forum. Why is wikipedia allowed to lecture to the world that SOPA is wrong but I can't say that this article should be deleted because there's a conflict of interest?(I was previously known as 58.6.44.60). LowStar (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All kinds of artists advocacy groups are left out of the discussion (like smaller unions and A2IM, the independent music advocacy group), as are other neutral groups like the ITIF. The result is that it makes the supporters look like the "corporate bullies" against Joe-internet. Why are these groups only mentioned in passing, if at all?69.201.143.126 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just write a sentence about them here and I'll pop it in for you, or someone will if I'm not here. Now as for the other thing, I could be wrong here, but you could take seriously the possibility that it may indeed be a case of '"corporate bullies" against Joe-internet.' I'm not saying it's not, but it just might be who knows. (hey if you work for them and can get me a job like $1500/hr or more, I'll fix the article and make the corporate bullies look like the messiah. but for now, it's the mob rule, that's wiki for ya.) Penyulap _talk 02:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make this the second paragraph in the support section (replacing the single sentence): Both the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support H.R. 3261, and many trade unions and industry groups large and small, have also publicly praised the legislation. In a joint statement, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) all showed support for SOPA. Smaller trade organizations, such as A2IM, which represents independent musicians, have also backed the bill. http://www.sag.org/joint-statement-sag-afm-aftra-dga-iatse-and-ibt-regarding-stop-online-piracy-act-hr-3261

Please put this sentence between November 22 and December 22: On December 5th, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-partisan non-profit, published an article that blasted critics of SOPA and defended the bill. The report called opponents claims about DNS filtering "inaccurate", their warnings against censorship as "unfounded" and recommended that the legislation be revised and passed into law. http://www.itif.org/publications/pipasopa-responding-critics-and-finding-path-forward

As for me? I'm far from a paid troll. I'm a citizen who is disgusted at the hypocrisy of huge media organizations (Google and Wikipedia) who spread lies, hysteria and distortions on a massive scale in the name of "free speech", when they in fact are just attempting to escape regulations and rightful litigation against their industry.69.201.143.126 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello?07:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.143.126 (talk)

Sorry 69.201.143.126 I thought I had a real life for a second there. done. Penyulap _talk 08:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please put the [[]] on everything to make it link to the other wiki pages.69.201.143.126 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As of now, this article is not biased. Anyone excepting a Fox News redactor would be able to see that. But then, it won't be serious, since Fox News are not serious news, but satire news like The Onion. Of course, there's always people that see fiction on TV and think that's real, but they are a minority. 79.153.226.226 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything has a bias because all humans have a bias. This article has contributions from such a wide diversity of contributors that I cannot find any signs of bias. Fox News is serious but has an extreme bias and much of it has inaccuracies, similar to NBC only that Fox News has a strong conservative bias and NBC has a progressive bias or just out for sensationalization, like a half-rate grocery store tabloid. But the reliability of Faux News and Peacock News is not the point here, the point here is that despite the wide public outcry against SOPA and PIPA and the bold protests and black-outs by many big sites, especially here at Wikipedia, this article is reliable and acceptably neutral. -- Azemocram (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What little respect i had for wiki died with their protest. Keep it neutral, or don't pretend to be. you can't pick and choose anytime the politics turn you on. Wiki s (half day?) shutdown proved that it's stance on neutrality is only valid as long as the issue doesn't grab their interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable sources can't be covered in the article.

Forbes statements about the bill's proposer in relation to copyright, and Lamar, or his office's reply, is not covered anywhere on wikipedia. If there is a lack of editing skill to adequately sort the bias out of that material and include it somewhere in an encyclopedic manner, then the article can't be called neutral. Wiki can cover Photo manipulation by fox news in unbiased fashion, and we can't manage 'inadvertent' non attribution ? I am beginning to see that the editors who describe this article as a joke may have a point. Myself, I know jokes, and this is no joke, it's shameful. Penyulap _talk 16:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia ‘common-sense’ has always superceded total ‘neutrality’

Hopefully, there is both total neutrality and wisdom. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And commonsense says wikipedia shouldn't have protest against SOPA in the first place. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added this: Talk:Blackout#Wikipedia_blackout_Wednesday_1-18-2012 . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonsense ? Wisdom ? maybe this relates better to the Mars500 article I edit, are we talking about planet Earth here ? I'm thinking this part of the conversation belongs over on the WP:SOPA pages, rather than here. Penyulap _talk 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You could be right; you most likely are right — It is hard to be aware of all the WP pages. The reason I brought it up here is because of going overboard with 'neutrality' when we are about to lose Wikipedia tomorrow (Wednesday) over PIPA and SOPA protesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I added a template to the top, to help people find the conversation pages, hope that helps. Btw, we aren't losing wikipedia, we're 'getting a life for 24 hours'. I'll be glued to the microwave for the next 24 hours (the TV went out in sympathy) Penyulap _talk 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! . . . I knew it was one day—I'll be creating edits offline to add later. :-) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll sit here (on WP) and see what happens when the curtain comes down. . . . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The new Wikipedia logo for the historic blackout was great! (with reflection) shown on the new page Wikipedia_blackout. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC) I think I'll take my reflective comments over to the new page.

Congress has listened to common sense and WP (delaying actions) and also Republican hopefuls weigh in on opposing encroachments. Here are my notes from the South Carolina CNN debate last evening. "Q: Pirating software? Newt, "You are asking a Conservative about Left-wing Hollywood. Google, Wikipedia, Yahoo, others say it will totally screw up the Internet." Romney: "We already have copyright laws. Gingrich got it just about right, far too intrusive. Use current laws to narrowly go after illegality." www.RushEcho.org by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Show takes on SOPA

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show takes on SOPA by comparing it to a plan that can prevent teen pregnancy by filling penises with cement! You should update this article! Video --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

well unfortunately if that checks out it may well get into the article. Who knows. I have no objection to it, but I can't be bothered doing it myself. Penyulap _talk 20:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, more notables have commented without going to that low level. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, if you have to use toilet humor to be funny, you're probably not funny in the first place. I think humor in the article yes, but the search for humor goes on. Penyulap _talk 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC resource today

ESA finally drops support for SOPA, after the fact by Matthew Hawkins; "In the aftermath of the death of the Stop Online Piracy Act, many are still fuming over the sudden 180 that the Entertainment Software Association demonstrated, just a few hours after the House of Representatives decided to throw in the towel."

99.181.152.120 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

which section or following/before which text would you like it ? Penyulap _talk 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

"the amendment limited such actions to sites that are designed or operated with the intent to promote copyright infringement, and it now only to non-US sites."

Can someone revise this please? I was reading through the page and became thoroughly annoyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XNyghtshade (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:51, 25 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) 20:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I know where you can ask if you want it, I do multilingual images mostly myself, like this but I got help with the arrows on this one that I made, I've done quite a few. Wikipedia has a graphics lab, I asked them about it. You can go there and ask about it yourself, it is here anyone can comment, I told them your idea already. Penyulap _talk 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you really want to whip this thing up (the image ..(referred to).. is almost certainly copyrighted) one way to go about it might be to make a table on your user (sub)page that is large enough to be legible, then make a screen capture of it. The image(s) can then be placed in the article at reduced size allowing the reader to click on it for the full size image(s). That would at least solve the legibility problem. I would advise against using the table itself in the article because of it's sheer size, and number of images. I would also suggest you leave the table on your user subpage just in case you need to make any corrections later. If you do decide to dive into this, I shudder at the amount of tedious labor that lies ahead of you.

— JBarta

That would be a good way to summarize the discussion at the graphic lab I think. I might have a crack at it if I have a lot of time on my hands, but I'd like to ask you, Xenophrenic, if you can see any troubles with this idea, or it's inclusion in the article, you have a good eye for this sort of thing. Penyulap _talk 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of using the charts showing Support/Opposition among lawmakers might find reasonable support in the "List of US Congresspersons who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA" article, as it is directly relevant. A weaker, but plausible case might be made to have such images in the "Protests against SOPA and PIPA" article, as the image claims to show major changes in the Support demographics as a result of protests. It isn't significantly relevant or of due weight for this article about the actual bill, and the source's conclusion that "As it stands, we can never be certain of each member's true position until a full vote is called", shows that it is actually problematic. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe pointing out that their stated position does not always reflect their final voting preference is a good idea ? Also, I don't get it, why put it into the opposition section if it shows both ? you say yourself it shows major changes in support demographics. What kind of images and illustrations can be used to improve this article in your opinion. Have a think about that one, as it's important to have some pics, and this article is rather bare. What kinds would you support ? and would you support this one or oppose ? Penyulap _talk 13:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, a visual image might be appropriate for either of the two articles mentioned above. Note, I do not suggest it should go into the opposition section (or any section) of this article, nor did I say "it shows major changes in support demographics". A little more care in reading, please. I actually agree with other editors that say the large sections in this article (such as the protests section), that have links to other articles already dedicated to those topics, can be trimmed, summarized and mostly replaced with "See main article YYY" links. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well how about some more pics for this article ? it's a bit bland. Penyulap _talk 10:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede content questions

I've moved the following recent content addition here for further discussion:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a pending international treaty signed by the United States in October 2011, is similar to SOPA.(Reuters) Poland has announced they will sign on January 26, 2012,(PDF) and Polish Wikipedia has announced they are considering a blackout similar to the SOPA-inspired 2012 Wikipedia blackout. A number of Polish government websites were taken down with DDOS attacks on January 21.(Global Voices Online)

• I checked the ACTA article and I don't see a similar tie-in to SOPA in the lede there
• Lede content should be a summary of content already thoroughly covered in the body of the article
• The first reference doesn't say anything about SOPA, and the last reference appears to be a user-generated Wiki, rather than a WP:RS

Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the addition from the lead because of similar concerns. I also removed commentary in the See also section. I'm not even sure that some of the See also entries belong, but we shouldn't be adding our own commentary to them, even if they do belong. As for ACTA, someone would have to find reliably sourced material saying it is similar to SOPA. Then, assuming it's sufficiently relevant, it would have to be developed in the body. Then and only then, if it's important enough to highlight, could it be added to the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The ACTA content has been restored to the lead by User:Penyulap. Erring on the side of caution, I'm not going to revert it (I already reverted one knee-jerk restoration of inappropriate material by Penyulap) because of edit-warring concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

TADA, I found better citations :D. Xenophrenic's points noted and agreed upon, hope this gets us one step closer to inclusion. I'm going to insert something into the international response section (needs fleshing out anyways) - the connection with the anti-SOPA protests is near the bottom of the reference. I'll go look for more, I unfortunately don't speak Polish.

The News Anonymous shuts down Polish PMs web site. Do you think this topic is better fitted for the protests section? Sloggerbum (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm not sure how deep we should get into areas that are not really part of SOPA but can be connected. I certainly wouldn't put the Polish protest in the Protests section (even though the article notes that the Polish protest came on the heels of the SOPA protests here). I think the See also is good enough myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi BBB, I appreciate your POV here, but personally disagree entirely. The article is supposed to give readers an understanding of the larger context, and I believe that ACTA is a huge part of that larger context, especially legislative history. ACTA only started creeping into our media about three days ago, but that's no reason to ignore the bigger legislative picture. SOPA effects international countries and could easily conflict with international copyright treaties and , including this is one step closer to encouraging people to work on the page's wp:systemic bias. Plus, I dislike assuming that people will go to associated subpages, I think this is a key point that needs to be on the main page.-Sloggerbum

(inserted text) this paragraph is in full concordance with policy, however, more specifically it summarizes lead policy, not simply full article policy. Penyulap _talk 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, here's what I'm going to defend putting in for now (somewhere in the body to be worked on, not the lead). really can't decide the best place for it though, since the page doesn't follow a chronological history. Sloggerbum (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Polskie Radio, Polish Wikipedia is considering a blackout similar to the SOPA-inspired 2012 Wikipedia blackout to protest Poland's plan to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)]], on January 26, 2012. ACTA is a pending controversial international treaty concerning enforcement of digital copyright law, which the United States signed in October 2011. After Poland's announcement it would sign the bill on January 19, on January 21, a number of Polish government websites, including that of the President, were shut down by hackers, some of whom chose to identify themselves as Anonymous.

References

(edit conflict)

• There is no requirement for reciprocal links from the ACTA article.
• "Lede content should be a summary" not relevant to sluggerbum's edit, it provides context.
• "The first reference doesn't say anything about SOPA," doesn't have to.

If you have any other concerns don't hesitate to ask, I support sloggerbums edit, but by all means would consider changes.

Xenophrenic, don't remove notable parts of the lead like this, say why you think they shouldn't be included.

• The bill could make some proxy servers and the Tor project illegal and the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) warned that websites Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo all seemed likely to shut down if the bill becomes law.

• the protests were the biggest in Internet history, with over 115 thousand sites altering their webpages.

• In response to the protest actions, RIAA stated, "It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation," and "it’s very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform."

I'm happy for them to be removed if there is some kind of good reason. Penyulap _talk 18:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering why Xenophrenic took out the above text from the article, it looks like it won't be expanded on here on the talkpage. Why that is, or why the text was removed, might be explained elsewhere if you borrow my crystal ball by clicking on it. Penyulap _talk 16:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is wondering about the edits, because they were explained above on this talk page, and in the edit summaries, and on your talk page, and on other editor's talk pages, and now in a new "Consensus" section below. No crystal balls needed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

sloggerbum, that shouldn't go in the lead, it belongs in the anon attack section, but not with too much real estate, something like 'in a similar attack in response to ACTA anon shut down a polish ....site' would be about right, probably could do it shorter than that, but get in the word ACTA, so readers know it wasn't SOPA, but otherwise short is good. Penyulap _talk 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"a polish PM's website was shut down in a similar attack in response to ACTA." that's pretty short, try that. Penyulap _talk 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sloggerbum, I have a few comments about the material you just inserted. How about calling the subsection "Protests to other legislation" (less POV)? I'd remove the word "controversial" for similar reasons. Fix cite #178. I'd make these changes myself but for the reason I noted earlier in this section.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Right on, copy that Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Protests_to_other_legislation Sloggerbum (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it, although if consensus is to keep that's fine. The problem is that fundamentally teh connect is with the protests, while this article should be focused on the SOPA bill. So including it gives us the problem that we have the ACTA protests because they are connected with the SOPA protests which are related to the article's subject, and that's getting a bit too far removed especially when that connection is loose. I'd feel differently if this was the main article about the SOPA protests, but as we have Protests against SOPA and PIPA, it seems that the other article is the best place for protests related to the SOPA ones, rather than the SOPA article itself.

I guess I should mention that part of the problem is that we've got extensive coverage of opposition and impact of the bill, but we're surprisingly fairly poor on the bill itself. I would prefer to see more focus on the bill over semi-connected protests on other issues. - Bilby (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is good writing style to provide the big picture within the article. That extends way beyond PIPA, which should be described and compared in detail within this article, at least a paragraph or so, that's my instinct. I think a classic related example would be the September 11 article, which defines "EPIC" fail because it made the New York Times, here because it sucked like the tooth fairy, and the second 'missing the point' epic fail of including a single link in response, instead of improving the quality of the article. This article fails in similar fashion because we can't describe the size of the protests adequately, can't cover anywhere on wikipedia 'Mist on the cedars' except maybe in the botany section, and yeah, the article is still not teaching readers very much at all. Like the first sentence of the old lead, it's a bore, and it's a messy, put you to sleep article. Penyulap _talk 11:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no hassles with providing the big picture. My concern is with providing a completely different picture than what the article is about. The article makes no attempt to shy away from protests, but the question is whether or not it should be covering protests in other countries, about legislation in those countries which is not directly connected to SOPA. At the same time, while you might wish to argue that the article doesn't give enough focus on the size of the protests, at the same time it barely gives any coverage to the bill itself. If there is an epic fail here, it is with the lack of attention paid to the bill itself. - Bilby (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"... worldwide arms race of unprecedented censorship of the Web..."

Yes, some claim this. Some also claim the moon landings were faked. I don't think material that is obviously not true or at least greatly exaggerated should be included. See WP:UNDUE. Search engines in many democratic countries ALREADY require "search engines to delete a domain name" if it is a pirate site such any "worldwide arms race" ought to be considered to be underway already. Even in the USA, domain names are blocked if they are related to child pornography or terrorism. Finally, these objections to not apply to the "proposed legislation" anyway but a historical version since the DNS blocking provisions have been dropped.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right Brian it certainly is a big claim. but also, that's not the actual sentence we're talking about, it's part of it. there is the rest of it, "Other opponents state that requiring search engines to delete a domain name could begin a..." and the part of the article it summarizes is this.

Deep-packet inspection and privacy

According to Markham Erickson, head of NetCoalition, which opposes SOPA, the section of the bill that would allow judges to order internet service providers to block access to infringing websites to customers located in the United States would also allow the checking of those customers' IP address, a method known as IP blocking. Erickson has expressed concerns that such an order might require those providers to engage in "deep packet inspection," which involves analyzing all of the content being transmitted to and from the user, raising new privacy concerns.

Policy analysts for New America Foundation say this legislation would "instigate a data obfuscation arms race" whereby by increasingly invasive practices would be required to monitor users' web traffic resulting in a "counterproductive cat-and-mouse game of censorship and circumvention would drive savvy scofflaws to darknets while increasing surveillance of less technically proficient Internet users."

Now as you can see that first paragraph is the sort of thing that would get a reader to sleep at night, the bit that is used kind of keeps them awake to the end of the lead. (you know I blame twitter for the short attention span of some readers, so very many readers only read the lead section, and TOO MANY editors only edit the lead section too. Poor editing I say!) But anyhow, any ideas for an alternate summary to the way it was done in the first place is something I'd like to look at, I'll even help you out if you want. At the moment, if it's not taken out of context like that, and you leave the 'some opponents state', it seems ok. Penyulap _talk 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey someone has just changed the text from what it said before, so that has to change as it is no longer a summary of the article, sorry, I have been so flat out that I just grabbed Cntrl-F and cut'n'pasted the new, changed, section into the talkpage. I'll go look for the original. Penyulap _talk 08:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, here, looking at the summarizing of the whole article into the new lede, I recall I did that myself !!! naughty me. I used approachable language as an explanation for the (not exactly) household word obfuscation, combined with the next few sections for the jurisdictional reach of the SOPA laws, and "The original bill requires these servers to stop referring requests for infringing domains to their assigned IP addresses." which if you summarize into approachable language became the whole sentence. Of course, there will be those who don't won't a plain-text explanation because of POV push, and will want to degrade the language into jargon, and as per my user talk page, if you have a read, this article is pretty much one where I really won't care to edit much more, due to the recent arrival of another editor. I'm not saying my summary was correct or not, I was working fast, did the whole article formatting upgrade in about an hour. That is, removing all refs from the lede and summarizing the article creating a new framework, from which other editors would have fun changing summaries themselves. Anyhow, I can see as plain as the sun shall set that that will change and this article will degrade. Well, that's wikipedia for you. Penyulap _talk 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon

(--vandalism removed)

Is that a statement by the hacker group anonymous ? is there a way to verify it is, like can you make it print out on my printer ? I heard anonymous can do impressive stuff like that, actually I'd be especially impressed on account of the printer is unplugged and stored away in the other room. But if someone can find the statement, ah, come to think of it my fingers ain't broken, I'll go google for it. Penyulap _talk 13:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it checks out. I'll put it into the article somewhere or other. Glad I noticed first, the comment probably would have got deleted otherwise (the comment originally proceeded templates at the top of the page.) Penyulap _talk 13:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

looks like it falls into the anonymous section, I'll have to go see how that article is coming along and how the summary here reflects the information there. Or someone will. You can always put it in, though do be careful with the formatting of the text, it'll last longer that way. Penyulap _talk 14:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Come on Penyulap, don't feed the trolls, even the self-righteous ones. Sloggerbum (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to, I assume good faith. But I took this comment seriously, loaded "WE WILL NOT FORGIVE" into google, and lo and behold spat out an article about it in an hour, I had no idea what he was talking about until I took a look at it in good faith, and it's related. People do not articulate in the same manner (some expect esp), and I think what you get out of other editors comments is proportional to the good faith you put in. (keep in mind that a google search will go stale and not show results at a later date, or if it's sanitized). I know about not feeding the trolls, and was surprised when I stumbled into the cave and saw you there after I read about dragons. People talk differently, if you speak like one does whilst at a polo tournie, one can expect friction when one sojournes to the bronx, and the reverse is also true. If people who 'aren't like us' are excluded, soon enough people will say, 'oh your just like a wikipedia editor' because wiki editors shall become so homogenized. Then wikipedia will not be for everyone. Penyulap _talk 22:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Like for my first response to him, it matches his language, he is speaking as if he is a spooky spokesperson for the anonymous group, so to engage in conversation with him, I match that dialect and variation and so forth precisely. It's obvious, just like when I use Japanese or whatever. We all had a turn at formatting his remarks, although I took two turns, so whose turn is it next? Penyulap _talk 22:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)