Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Weasel Words in Intro

Just as a quick note, the use of the word "even" in the openning paragraphs-

Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions would include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would even make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony. The bill even gives immunity to Internet services that take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

seem like it's injecting an unneeded sense of incredulity into the article, which sort of skews it in one direction. The following paragraph also seems less than ideal, though the phrasing sort of weasels in both direction at once.

96.238.166.239 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Entertainment Industry Campaign Financing

I don't understand why this was deleted. It seems important to note that a lot of the politicians supporting SOPA had their campaigns financed to a large degree by the entertainment industries. Opensecrets.org is a reliable source and they have information on each of the politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not have a chance to look at either what you put in or the comment when the other editor took it out but I suspect he would say something about your sources. Try to find a newspaper article that says this, is my suggestion. I have gone through the campaign finance databases (check out Obama! much as I worked for the man's campaign, that's ugly...) and so I agree, yes, this is a fact and it is true. But this is also wikipedia where the rule is that we do not do original research, we collate research by others that is thought to be reliable. I do not know if anyone has tried to use a campaign finance database as a source before. You might look through the reliable source noticeboard. Here are some older links that might help or at least give you a place to start. I need to work on the technical section and have said I'll flesh out the legalese section if nobody else steps up, so I can't do this right now:

• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
• http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151493/us_doj_copyright_protection_bill_is_flawed.html
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html

This is inane. OpenSecrets.org is far more reliable than a newspaper source. News reporters use OpenSecrets as a source on a routine basis. Black Max (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Black Max

Fact is fact and i wonder why Wikipedia, a site that prides itself on reliability and truthfullness, chooses to ignore original research on such a technicality even if it completely proves or disproves an article. If "notable" research showed that water doesn't exist, would that be taken as fact by Wikipedia due to this? If this really is a rule then it should be reviewed and possibly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.155 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, WP doesn't use original research, period. Black Max (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Black Max

List of Opponents is incomplete

Both ACLU and Brookings Institution have taken official positions against this bill: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3859 and http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx I would like to add them to the list, but the article is semi-locked, so I can't (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heppet (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Brookings Institution doesn't actually take official positions, the link is to an article by Alan A. Friedman who is a Brookings fellow but doesn't speak on behalf of the institute. Furthermore, his article doesn't state that he is officially against the bill but rather he highlights potential risks of the bill and states "policymakers are encouraged to analyze the net benefits of these bills in light of the increased cybersecurity risks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.16.56 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrible and Biased Article, are the authors even qualified?

PhD Computer Scientist here. This article lacks a discussion of the DNS -- which is simultaneously alarming and indicative that the authors are woefully unqualified. Concerned this article is written by proponents of the bill with little to no understanding of internet technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Many Internet security experts are highly concerned about DNS filtering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System http://blog.eset.com/2011/11/15/sopa-and-pipa-and-dns-an-open-letter-to-congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by another guy:

There's a problem with the title I section:

"Internet service providers would be required to modify their DNS look-up servers to return an empty response for these sites, making them virtually inaccessible,"

Removing a DNS entry does not make them virtually inaccessible at all. It just makes you know a set of numbers (that looks like 111.222.233.244) rather than a set of characters (like foosite.com). It's a tad more difficult to communicate, but far from impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpemmons (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Many sites do not work properly when they are accessed by their IP addresses, especially if authentication is required, due to the bare URL redirect and HTTPS use on the sites.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As Jasper mentioned, many sites need Host: headers in their HTTP requests to function properly. Of course this could be fixed by editing the system's host file, or connecting to a foreign DNS server (if allowed), but both of these solutions are impractical, and for the average user are not possible, making sites "virtually" inaccessible. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your help. Please also see the related discussion at Protect IP Act where I have been fighting a battle against many small stupid technical flaws that keep being re-added, links that resolve, descriptions of the workings of DNS attributed to lawyers and the like -- that article is the subject of a current post at the Reliable Source noticeboard where well-intentioned non-technical reviewers seem to have decided that a CISSP is an expert in this topic but Dan Kaminsky and Paul Vixie (a co-author of BIND) are not. Help help help. Please. Seriously :) LOL. Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I removed this line: "The bill is consistent with constitutional rights to due process by incorporating comprehensive notice provisions and including by reference Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – the same federal protection found in all U.S. civil litigation in federal court." as a clear violation of WP:OR.

The whole rest of the page seems like it was written solely by supporters of the bill. About 98% of the "Supporters and opposition" section is devoted to the supporters, with one sentence at the end devoted to the opposition. I think this needs to be evened out some. Information on this can be found here and here, with multiple more information links to be found in each. Not saying that I won't do it, but it's there for anyone else who wants to add any in. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill name

H.R. 3261 has not been renamed to the "E-PARASITE Act." Its short title is the "Stop Online Piracy Act." The official bill text confirms this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

This article should be moved back under the title "Stop Online Piracy Act." Hartboy (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The one reference cited in support of the "E-PARASITE" nickname merely says "is also known as". I moved the article back to the bill's proper name as it appears in actual legitimate documentation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

pov tag

• In addition to the discrepancy in coverage noted below, the word "rogue" is not neutral and should be avoided. I'd consider it a fair description of a site proven to engage in these activities, but the bill does not require that. Yes, I realize that the legislation uses the term and that some of the media coverage has unquesioningly accepted it, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia should. So far this administration's copyright initiatives have shut down many sites that were completely legal and there is no reason to think that giving them more power will make them more careful. Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

ok -- there *used* to be a section below from another user saying that the article had vastly more enunciation of the position of bill advocates than of its opponents'. This seems to have been lost in the page move. It is still however an issue. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• also needs to be addressed: "attempts to protect America’s military, police, and the public by deterring counterfeiting through increasing penalties for counterfeiting goods or intended for" --> why not just say "would increase penalties"? Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a neutrality issue. Thats a summarizing issue. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let's get Mom and apple pie in there too while we are at it ;) Do you agree the second version is better? Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving here for discussion: "H.R 3261 attempts to protect America’s military, police, and the public by deterring counterfeiting through increasing penalties for counterfeiting goods or services intended for the military, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure applications, illegal medicines, or goods that cause serious bodily harm or death." There are already a LOT of clarification needed statements in this tiny section. In addition to the issue raised above, I thought the counterfeit drugs were in Title I? Needs verification, sourcing, attribution, all that fun stuff.Elinruby (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The ending of the first paragraph (this bill “modernizes United States criminal and civil statutes to meet new IP enforcement challenges and protect American jobs.”) is clearly slanted towards proponents of the bill. I suggest changing it to something along the lines of "the intention of the bill ..." or "according to ..." Karategeek6 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I called weasel and removed it. I think that the sentence earlier in the paragraph mentioning advocates' jobs claim adequately summarizes the little information provided by the quote. I'll start a separate section in case anyone would like to discuss.Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

article is largely a paraphrase of the legislation

Some secondary sources are needed and the language needs to be simpler, clearer, and to actually say something. Elinruby (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

the proposed overturn of safe harbor needs discussion and also the criminalization of streaming

These are very notable points that are not covered except in the ambiguous "increased penalties for certain especially dangerous acts of counterfeiting, economic espionage, and willfully infringing copyrights by streaming." Is "especially dangerous acts" a description of "infringing copyrights by streaming"? Sentence construction appears to say that all streaming violates copyright. Whether this is intentional or not it should be addressed. The effect on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are also pertinent. The fact that this would overturn Viacom's recent loss in court is worth at least a footnote imho Elinruby (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

fact tag in content section

I added it because I have not seen the statement anywhere else that these sites would be eligible for seizure if they were under US jurisdiction, and if it's a reference to Operation in our Sites, the legality of of these seizures is in question. At a minimum a link to the legislation text would be nice, plus some secondary sources supporting the above statement. Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

this article is the subject of a post at Wikipedia:NPOVN

as discussion does not seem to be taking place on this page.... Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

American Censorship Day

I moved the following content here for review:

November 16, the day US Congress held hearings on the bill, was dubbed by many opposition groups including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, the "American Censorship Day". Many opposing services, such as search engine DuckDuckGo and social feed site reddit have placed black banners over their site logos with the words "NO CENSORSHIP", in protest of the bill.

The first sentence is sourced to a non-reliable source (Pemkot?), and the rest is primary-sourced to a new advocacy website. Has there been coverage of this by legitimate sources that we can cite? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the first sentence: bloomberg, newyorker (brief). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding it back. Tumblr, DuckDuckGo, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, reddit, TechDirt, 4chan the Free Software Foundation and Students for Free Culture are all participants in this. It's valid, and I'll cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContinueWithCaution (talk • contribs)

Summary

The summary in the info box could be revised to be a little clearer. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I worked on it a bit. Please feel free to take it further. Time is an issue for me. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversial House Judiciary Committee Hearing on SOPA

Would it be possible to include a section about the extremely lopsided, and arguably controversial, hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on SOPA? I believe it merits inclusion in the article due to the nature of the hearing. King Arthur6687 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any actual reliable sources that cover the topic? Preferably a journalistic source, rather than a commentary/opinion/advocacy source? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not too many, as big visual content is a supporter of this bill, and would stay away from covering its ramifications. It's clear that the ramifications on the page *do* exist (I would say google, yahoo, etc are reliable sources), I added more sources and re-added that section. Instead of removing large sections citing lack of sources, I'm sure sources could easily be found, or the {{Citation needed}} could be used until another editor cited the section. The way sections are being removed now seem to add a lot more pro-bill bias to the article, which is unacceptable. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 11:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the battle between "big visual content", as you call it, and "big pirate" (or "big tech nerd"?), I'm sure each side will emphasize the strengths in their positions while minimizing the deficiencies. We should avoid citing sources that themselves have taken a firm stand on one side or the other of the issue, except as necessary to illustrate an expressed opinion. We definitely shouldn't cite "tweets" as a source for an assertion of fact (and I have removed such). There are some news sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements and have tried to report on all sides of the issue, and those are the ones we should be using. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ars Technica has covered the hearing. I am sure there are others, but that's one I noticed and it's a good online tech magazine and an umimpeachable reliable source as far as I know. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or there is this: "if you were watching the House hearing on SOPA Wednesday morning, you'd hardly guess there were so many concerned parties. The Judiciary Committee set up a mockery of an open debate by stacking the witness deck."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/16/BUO81M043R.DTL#ixzz1e272IsV5

Neutrality tag

Wording needs fundamental reworking - contains weasel words insinuating the motives of the bill are positive, when the media coverage (exploding in the last 24 hours), is painting a picture where serious ramifications are being brought up by individuals in the tech industry. Also, the little box in the corner gives undue weight to idea that these legislative ideas are positive. Until the page and introductory paragraph is properly updated with ALL perspectives being covered in the mainstream media in legitimate publications, this tag must stay up to make readers of this article aware there may be a bias. This expansion will need to take place over the next few weeks as the issue is under scrutiny by the mainstream media, please do what you can to help improve the page. Sloggerbum (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Long Title" is taken direct from the final bill submission. As for the bill summary - that is presently taken from the crafters of the bill. The bill is obviously controversial, and there have been criticisms raised - some with more merit than others. The summary section in the info box doesn't appear to be the proper venue to debate those criticisms. The present summary is taken from this introduction to the bill, although this summary was also produced by the drafters of the legislation. Of course the proposers of the bill aren't going to outline the potential flaws in their summary description. Can you suggest some high quality, impartial and uninvolved sources covering the issue that we can use for our article, or do you think it is still too recent? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case I do believe both the title and summary are appropriate, as described in the actual legislation. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 11:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which summary were you looking at? I had edited it to something more neutral, but it's been changed back to quoting the legislation on on itself. Surely there is a policy on this? I am pretty sure that the question will have arisen before. If that policy says that we should use the bill's description of its motives, then let me tell ya, wikipedia, there's this bridge I own in Brooklyn.... can we at least get some quotes markson that? Elinruby (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I went and looked at the template page. It seemed to imply that the summary should be written by the editors. However, I noticed while I was there that there is a template specifically for US legislation (vs. some other country) so I switched to that one instead. It does not have a summary entry. If someone wants to modify the template I am open to it having one, but I don't feel up to making the attempt just now. Elinruby (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, Xenophrenic, and C_(u)w_(t) - I'm out for most of the day and so wish I could be more immediately helpful, but if one of you has time today to spend an hour(s) aligning the intro the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (which states "[The intro] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies,") that would go far. Over 60,000 people used this page as a resource yesterday, and so the improvement would be serving thousands upon thousands of people in the near future. I'll respond in more detail in a few minutes, afk Sloggerbum (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lead has changed several times in the last few hours, and I see no neutrality problems with the revised version. Sopher99 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I do (assuming I am looking at the same version you were). It definitely doesn't mention any controversies for one thing. Doesn't mention that it makes streaming video a felony for another. I need to be afk about an hour. If nobody else has tackled this when I get back I will give it a shot. But I'll need help keeping it from changing back. (Note - no issue with anyone editing my work to improve it, but the article keeps being edited back to a paraphrase of the legislation, and THAT's an issue.)Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be substantially rewritten in more neutral language, as it currently stands it comes across as if it was written by staunch opponents of the bill as a case against the bill, and not encyclopedic at all. 58.106.11.54 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the article comes across as very biased. I would edit it if I knew anything about it, but coming here for information I find that this is a rare occasion in which I don't feel comfortable trusting Wikipedia's neutrality. TheK3vin (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Can 4chan be added to oppision? It was featured on http://americancensorship.org/ and is the 3rd screen shotted image down the page.

92.25.133.253 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. I feel 4chan is notable enough to added. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's notable, I agree. But what did you use for a source? I assure you that someone (not me) will dispute it and remove it if it's not footnoted to an unimpeachable reliable source. I don't have time to look for one right now and I feel the statement is accurate, so I am leaving it, personally. But word to the wise, you should start looking for mention of it on CNET or something if you want the mention to stay in. I assume that you guys can find the list of criteria for a reliable source unassisted. ;) Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait though, maybe this falls under an exception about quoting people about their opinions. I am working on the lead and am keeping an eye out for outside mentions of 4chan support though, as this would save everyone some tedious discussion. If I find one I'll add it but just now I have little time. Elinruby (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's gone, by the way. I can't put it back in without fighting to get that americancensorship.org website recognized as reliable, and since it's new and an advocacy site, that probably won't happen even if I do. I see the mentions on twitter but that's not usually a source, esp if the account is a pseudonym. The links to YouTube have the same problem. I have seen a couple of people add mentions of Anonymous support to the article, which get deleted. That totally requires a source, since Anonymous is ... anonymous. So what I am saying is that I think it's important enough to be in there but somebody needs to find a mainstream media article that says so. Doesn't matter whether you or I agree with that. I can't go to bat for something with no source. Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words removed from lead

I took out "this bill "modernizes [United States] criminal and civil statutes to meet new IP enforcement challenges and protect American jobs."". Before I did, I edited in a "supporters say" statement that included the jobs claim, the only actual information in this verbiage. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody called cnet an unreliable source

I'm assuming that this was an accident or somebody's strange joke, so I removed the tag. Please discuss here otherwise. CNET is a well-known online publication with a good reputation. That particular article has been cited many times in other coverage. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about section 103

I don't think this sentence actually says anything?:

Section 103 encourages and provides a framework for rightsholder victims of infringing sites, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services to work together to take away the financial incentive for these websites to operate, without the need for government intervention.

0h my bad, that's the part about not needing a pesky day in court. I'll add that into the next sentence. Please comment if you disagree. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I won't, because the next sentence says "Under section 103, there is a two-step process based loosely on the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to seek limited injunctive relief against Internet sites dedicated to theft of U.S. intellectual property." No sourcing. The statement contradicts all the legal observers out there saying it *does away* with notice-and-takedown; heck, we quote a *sponsor* as saying so. That's pretty fast and loose alright. Needs attribution at a minimum, OR and incorrect OR as it stands. Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"If the site that was the subject of a notification provides a counter-notification, then the instruction to a payment network provider or Internet advertising service to suspend services to the site is lifted and the rights-holder can pursue its claim in court." -- also unsourced, unattributed, in my opinion wrong -- the doctorow piece says the onus is on the website to prove innocence.

Removed "without requiring a prescription or where the drugs are adulterated or misbranded." -- seeing mentions that being a foreign website is assumed to mean the drugs are counterfeit. Can't find a reliable source either way, need help with this if someone has time. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

gotta go, fixed a lot, leaving two big problems

Free speech -- unsourced statements, help appreciated. EFF is good for arab spring if nothing else found but let's give them a break. The whistleblower reference is to a case involving insecure election machines, I can source it in 10 minutes when I get back, if you are here before I do please feel free to do it for me

DNS explanation needed for Technical concerns. Elinruby (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I still think the word rogue should only be used in the context of a quote rather than used in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I noted elsewhere, perhaps above, all definitions of the word are derogatory. Elinruby (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing of recent additions

I've removed the "E-PARASITE" line cited to the "opencongress" Wiki; the nickname isn't mentioned in that 'source', and also appears to only be used trivially by bill detractors. Definitely not WP:LEDE material, if warranted at all. Trimmed external links section containing various commentary articles, including removal of a link to a protest petition site (See WP:ELNO, number 4). If there is usable information in links you add to the External Links section, please consider incorporating that info in our article. Reworded the lead to more closely conform to the information in the cited sources. Removed "prevented from passing" text from lede, as it isn't supported by the cited source (its status is actually "pending"), and is inappropriate in the lede anyway ... it's a different bill. Consider drawing comparisons in the body of this article, and include the status of the bill there. Removed the "The bill would remove the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)" assertion of fact from the lede - this bill doesn't "remove" provisions from another bill (nor does the cited source say it does) -- actual DMCA-related concerns should be expanded in the appropriate section. Moved punctuation before the citations (instead of after), per MOS. Corrected link entitled "Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA"; it actually went to an itworld.com article -- neither of which support the assertion of fact: "The bill would make social websites that host user content, such as YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook, responsible for ensuring that their users do not post infringing material." Removed that as unsupported pending reliable sources. Removed "DNSSEC" reference from the text cited to the "Andrew Lee" source - perhaps it is in a different source? Removed "Maxine Waters" text cited only to a tweet for obvious reasons (and as explained above). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• re lead and cited sources, ref#4 talks about revenue *losses* but ok, that's a bit picky. If you really want to turn it around ("protect revenue") which I guess I would if I had your point of view, how about finding a cite for an industry rep getting quoted that way? Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• "protects the intellectual property market" -- for readability's sake would like to make this "protects intellectual property", market doesn't seem to add much and the other changes make the lead kinda dense. I may have other similar comments in a few.
• "The bill is intended to expand the ability of" -- can this become "The bill expands the power of"? More readable, still seems neutral, still seems true.
• resultant --> resulting. Please? Best practice for readability is to use the Anglo-Saxon word usually.

Where to begin :) Let me go look at the backup I made and see how much of that I can agree with. The punctuation, I am sure you are probably right about -- refernce format may also need work. Meanwhile please document which "various commentary sites" you removed from external links, as some of them were from acknowledged experts and that could be courteous, keeping me from having to fish around in the page history. I disagree with the protest petition site removal; it's notable due to sheer numbers and isn't being used to prove anything but its own existence. Please put it back. The problem with links you mention may be a cut and paste error on my part. I will go look. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you right-click on the "History" tab at the top of the article page, then click on the word "prev" where it says (cur | prev) immediately to the left of the article version you'd like to view, you can bring up the article exactly as you left it. I hope that helps. As for the protest petition, that is already described in the body of the article — further promoting the issue in Wikipedia by external linking the advocacy website is prohibited. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

where is it in the body? If so I missed it.Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article on the *Senate* bill. Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I know how to do it! But thanks. I just don't think I should have to. Not routinely anyway, and not to see changes from an experienced user. Please document your changes. You are not some IP address wandering through. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did document my changes (see the big paragraph just above). Links were removed per WP:EL, and that is documented -- and I've also explained how you can review changes in exact, minute detail. Requests for additional courtesies are usually better received when accompanied by courtesy extended.

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Trimmed external links section containing various commentary articles" doesn't tell me what you deleted but thas' ok, it's all good, I'll just get it out of history again...Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

oh and about Protect IP, a hold does effectively prevent the Senate from passing the bill. It may seem strange but it's true. The bill's status will remain "pending" until the clock runs out or the hold is removed. I'll replace the text and add in the wikilink to the hold article that explains this.Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Best done in the Protect IP Act article, however. I'd also have no objection to having it in the body of this article if a comparitive treatment is to be given. Also, could you review this source, and let me know if you see any factual inaccuracies in how it describes the different sections of the bill? I'm sure there are concerns about the various provisions that are not covered in that source, but I'd like to use it to flesh out the "contents" section of our article where there are presently several "citation needed" tags. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to somehow convey briefly that there is a House bill and a Senate bill and they will need to both pass then be reconciled, etc. Mention of a Senate bill should include a mention of its status methinks. Brief mention preferably Actual wording negotiable as long as it's accurate. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in a second. Offhand, PC World usually ok (at least on technical topics).

Oh hey it's Grant Gross, didn't know this was an IDG site. Ya, he's a careful reporter, and I am sure he got the sections correctly summarized. Looks fine. I actually also think this may be a better source for the immunity than what is there, both language and ref bothered me there as I recall.Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

outdent, moved list of deletions from above to allow reply:

• Removed the "The bill would remove the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)" assertion of fact from the lede - this bill doesn't "remove" provisions from another bill (nor does the cited source say it does) -- actual DMCA-related concerns should be expanded in the appropriate section.

that's pretty picky. It makes them not be in effect. Renders quaint? Abolishes? And it was in the lead as a a stunningly important effect of the bill. It affect almost everyone in Silicon Valley at a minimum, so I think it belongs in the lead. Will come back to this

That's pretty picky? You betcha; text cited to a source needs to be supported by that source. It's a basic tenet of editing Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

moved the above comment here from the punctuation bullet point. Pretty sure you meant to put it here. If not please explain. I was talking about "remove" vs "renders obsolete" or whatever language might be better. DCMA needs to be in there and sure it needs to be sourced; I suggest we work on sections right now tho as a couple of them have big holes. Elinruby (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Moved punctuation before the citations (instead of after), per MOS.

sounds fine, sure. Thanks

• Corrected link entitled "Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA"; it actually went to an itworld.com article --

it goes to inc.com now,which was where it was supposed to go. I will take your word that it didn't, esp since I was in fact looking at ITworld...

• neither of which support the assertion of fact: "The bill would make social websites that host user content, such as YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook, responsible for ensuring that their users do not post infringing material." Removed that as unsupported pending reliable sources.

shrug, don't remember what the other source was that was there but secondary sources for this are thick on the ground, sure, np

• Removed "DNSSEC" reference from the text cited to the "Andrew Lee" source - perhaps it is in a different source?

not sure. This was there and I worked around it as it looked plausible. Getting to Technical concerns section now so I'll address. Thanks.

• Removed "Maxine Waters" text cited only to a tweet for obvious reasons (and as explained above).

meh. She probably did say it; I looked for another source for this and did not find one, but I did learn that she really really likes the phrase "unintended consequences." However, ok, it's a tweet that claims to quote someone and EFF or not I kinda agree that that is kinda weak. The quote was semi-technical too, so there are almost certainly better references for whatever the claim was, will have to look. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

urgent: serious problem in lead

"while making liable for damages any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement." I am pretty sure this is wrong and I do not see it in the article. Fatigue may however be the problem there and I appreciate you discussing the source with me. Please address this. I think the liability is the current situation and goes away if the bill passes. Let me see if I can find you a source on that. The rest of the third paragraph is a bit unwieldy but better than what we had, other changes to it will probably take the form of suggestions for readability. Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it in the article now. It's there but you left out the word "knowingly" and that's critical. Because the site owner has to prove it and the copyright holder can just say whoops, my bad. Not sure how to fix this. I think I should remove it for now. I will leave the rest of the paragraph for now as its problems are not factual Elinruby (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: "while making liable for damages any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement"

source text: "If a copyright holder knowingly misrepresents that a site is dedicated to infringement, or if a respondent to an infringement claim knowingly misrepresents that a site is not dedicated to infringement, they can be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys' fees."

we can always of course add the knowingly in, but the burden of proof may have changed so far MSM doesn't seemed to have noticed that. Bear with me a few hours, k? Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Added "knowingly". If the bill subsequently changes, we can amend it here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

fair enough as a stopgap. We do need something about the burden of proof and I saw that somewhere last night, but I really had to go for a while. I will come back to it. As it stands right now the article needs, to my eyes, a discussion of the DNS issues, work on the different sections of the law, and some more quotes from the sponsors and advocates of the bill. To be honest, Goodlatte's comments are more likely to be read if you shorten them, but I left them as they were because I thought you might object and besides, now we have somewhat more text from opponents. I have references open for the law sections and can work on that a bit if you want to find some RS pro-SOPA quotes. Just suggesting this so we don't edit-conflict each other. Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Deep packet inspection

Until just now there was a bit in the lead section about SOPA requiring ISPs to perform deep packet inspection. It is not mentioned in the article body.

The cited reliable source does not say exactly that SOPA mandates deep packet inspection. It says it would require ISPs to examine traffic in a similar manner to deep packet inspection. Here's what the source says:

In addition to domain-name filtering, SOPA would impose an open-ended obligation on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prevent access to infringing sites. This means that SOPA would impose an unprecedented responsibility on ISPs to scrutinize and screen all user traffic. Preventing access to specific sites would require ISPs to inspect all the Internet traffic of its entire user base -- the kind of privacy-invasive monitoring that has come under fire in the context of "deep packet inspection" for advertising purposes.

Should we introduce the concept of deep packet inspection in this article relative to SOPA? Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic moved it down the page and I had other fish to fry at that moment (see above). I think ContinueWithCaution (sp?) then removed it; I just left a request on his user page for his reasons, ie no, the article does not explicitly say that each http packet will be examined, or use the phrase. But the above paragraph is a functional description of deep packet inspection, assuming that in fact it is true that the bill requires ISPs to keep their users from connecting to infringing sites. That's the part *I* am not sure of, as I had not seen the claim elsewhere. But the authors are lawyers and tech lawyers at that. You *would* need to look at every packet, and I think every field of every header, to be sure of preventing users from doing anything infringing. I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time reading wireshark captures. If you think the terminology leads us into distracting byways, I don't insist on it although I think it is correct. How about "would require ISPs to inspect all the internet traffic of its entire user base?" Elinruby (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if I completely misunderstand the question, please rephrase. :P Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, just noticed that CNET has written this up using the deep packet inspection terminology so.... any reason not re-add this? Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss it, we should tell the reader about it in the article body. After that is done, we should summarize the body text in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

alright, thanks. That's more or less what CwC said, that he hadn't seen it but if I was sure...hadn't done it as I was wondering if the term itself was confusing or you were just questioning it because the Atlantic didn't use the term. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that bit into the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How long for a bill to pass into law?

I'm ignorant of the legal system of the US so I need to know if this bill is passed smoothly when is the nearest date for it to become an effective law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.20.18 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in a committee. The next step would be for it to go to the House. The Senate has a similar bill, which Ron Wyden prevented the Senate from voting on. For it to become law the House has to pass a bill, the Senate has to pass its bill, then the president has to sign it. A date depends on many factors. They were trying to fast-track it, I think. The fast-track may not happen now but this is still pending. hth Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

forgot to mention -- since the bills are different -- the other is Protect IP Act -- when/if they both pass then a joint committee of both Houses does a reconciliation process and the two chambers have to pass the reconciled bill. But by then it is too late to protest or even be sure what people are slipping into the text. If you want to register approval or disapproval the time would be ASAP and the way to do it would be to contact the members of the respective House and Senate committees Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November 20 edits

A lot of work has been done on the article over the past 24 hours. I have a few concerns about some of the edits and additions which I'll outline below. I've made a number of clerical corrections, formatting, spelling and grammar corrections, but below I've gone into more detail on some edits that may not be as self-explanatory:

• I've returned some summary content to the lead. It was moved out with this edit, with the edit summary stating (moved incomplete description of law into section about law. About to expand it.) -- expanding on what the bill does, in the body of the article, is fine ... but summarizing that content in the lede is also necessary.

• Under the 'Contents' section, where a neutral description of the content of the bill should reside, instead we have this second sentence: Although the bill's language says otherwise, its requirements would overturn the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DCMA) process requiring copyright owners to submit notices of infringement to websites and ask for the infringing material to be taken down, legal observers say. There are several problems with this. (1) It is worded as an argument against the bill, instead of a description of the bill. (2) It is cited to the CDT advocacy group as the source, yet the CDT is listed later in the article as an "opponent" protesting the bill - no longer a neutral source. (3) Even if the source were usable, it doesn't support the "Although the bill's language says otherwise" text. I moved the text to the 'concerns' section.

• Removed unsourced sentence about DNSSEC from 'Content' section; found no mention of it in the contents of the bill.

• Changed header: "Lobbyists, Campaign Contributions and the Revolving Door" ... not exactly neutral, and could be more descriptive. Addendum: After closer reading of this whole section, it is evident that only the Politico reference makes any mention of the SOPA legislation, and that's only to say that the big winners of the controversy are the lobbyists ... not the supporters or opponents. Removed as non-relevant.

• Removed the sentence: Claims made in a good faith belief that infringed has occurred would be immune from prosecution. -- Cited to this source, but the source does not support it.

• I replaced this citation with a CRS citation already in use. I couldn't access that site (might just be temporarily down).

• I renamed and moved the section titled "Criticism of the hearing Nov 16th 2011". Placing this obscure content as the number 2 section, between 'Contents' and 'Ramifications' is inappropriate.

• Moved some of the 'Ramifications items into more specific subsections; also moved eWeek link to page 1 in source.

More in a bit. I see some synth issues that I need to review more closely. Quite a few good additions, however - kudos. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me you could do the most good by fleshing out the supporters as the article leans if anything against the bill just now. I was just looking at the LA Times. There are also a lot of wikipedia articles that may apply.But...k.

where was the DNSSEC mention, just so I know? I do agree that both coverage and documentation on the issue was lacking. I have asked for help. If it does not materialize I'll try to get to this soon. Much slowed just now by having to type sideways laying down.

jdsupra -- thought the source ok but not amazing. What's a CRS? :)

criticism, there's more material above, will look at what you did though. Cited source ya, ok, obscure but probably accurate and provided the interesting flesh tone detail.

pcmag -- pretty sure it's in there towards the end of the article, unless I linked the wrong pcmag article. There are about 4. I've seen several mentions of this so it's not a fringe concern.

basically, feel free to review and correct but please document (above not bad) and move here for correction rather than delete. Some of that writing took a very long time and AFAIK if you don't like a source there are others. For all of it. Oh and thanks for the kudos ;)

oh, on lead, let's get the article written *then* summarize. ContinueWithCaution suggested this, and I agreed. On campaign contributions, whywhywhy. You can't possibly believe a couple hundred million is irrelevant, and fo sho there are analyses that came out today and last night saying otherwise.

please undo re-insertion of biased and incorrect statement in lead

See above, and in addition we've specifically discussed that the bill language may say it but the lawyers say that the bill lies. Elinruby (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure exactly what this conversation is about (you're both more involved in the content at this point). But I was going to point out earlier that I think the original bill itself should be treated with the same delicacy with which we normally treat press releases. True, there are kernels are hard, factual information contained within the bill (the hard policy). However, the general prose and style of the bill (when explaining its supposed cause and effect and its supposed motives) is inherently promotional in favor of the bill. This obviously doesn't completely devalue the bill as a source, but again, language and wild statements about positive effect by the bill's original writers should be carefully screened and placed in context, and if possible, somehow also supported by another source. Again, it just comes down to watching for weasel words, I suppose - I think the problem earlier was honestly that weasel words were polluting the Wikipedia text because it had been unconsciously carried over from the promotional bill language. I think the current state of the page does a good job of keeping the bill language in check, personally; you've obviously gone over it with a fine tooth comb. I also have a suspicion you two were earlier misinterpreting bias from each other simply because of how you were choosing to display the bill source material. Sorry if that was completely off topic, but I'd felt it had to be said. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point about "promotional language" is spot on, and citing the bill's primary promoters or detractors could result in such over-the-top language as "...organizations engaged in foreign or economic espionage..." or "...this bill creates a strong deterrent to those who would risk the lives of our armed forces and our national security...". However, those sources have since been replaced, and the neutral language from third-party sources such as Grant Gross in PC World used instead. (Note Elinruby's apparent approval above: "Oh hey it's Grant Gross, didn't know this was an IDG site. Ya, he's a careful reporter, and I am sure he got the sections correctly summarized. Looks fine.") So that leaves me wondering just what "biased and incorrect statement" Elinruby is talking about here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

also, statements from anyone (even lawyers in the press) saying the bill "lies" might be a bit extreme - the bill is weasely, like all legal documents created by high end, multi-million dollar law firms and politicians. But I doubt they'd ever do anything like explicitly "lie" in the actual bill - doing so is a legal liability. Disguise or warp the truth in a legal manner, well then, perhaps. But if we include any statements such as the bill "lying" in the entry, obviously you'll want to be extremely, extremely careful about explaining the context of where the opinion comes from. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the article use the word. Not me anyway. I do however suggest that there are respectable opinions that say that the bill will not have the effects that the language says it will. Perhaps I should not have used the word here either, but I'd just seen a lot of work removed for no good reason and needed to protest that before sleeping for twelve hours :) But if it reassures you, no, I don't think the word should be in the article either, even carefully attributed. There's such a thing as responsible quoting. Elinruby (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been some strong words cast about from both sides, and it isn't too problematic to have limited 'examples' of the rhetoric in the article if they are properly delineated and attributed as mere opinion -- but the actual legitimate concerns should be neutrally and accurately conveyed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lobbyist inclusion

I looked at the edits about including the lobbyist/campaign contribution material Elinruby mentioned, and my vote is for including it for now. My reasoning is that at this point, the page is huge, and soon will need to be split off into various subpages. (Maybe not this week, but next week, etc.). We can't predict which sections may prove relevant in the media in the near future and are going to be expanding to the point of needing their own subpages. But until we make that call, there's no reason to cut out hard, relevant, succinctly presented facts. I say bloat now and slice later. (Sorry, that's a disgusting analogy).

HOWEVER, I really, really like the current version of the Criticism of the committee section. I'd recommend Elinruby put the lobbyist information back in, but do it in a separate, neutrally named section that doesn't interfere with Xenophrenic's last edits. I imagine we may decide it is better tacked on somewhere else later. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I should preface this by saying that the lobbying & money issues behind this legislation (and behind the opposition of this legislation) is certainly relevant, and I am not opposed to reliably sourced content that properly covers that aspect. However, the text I removed from our article was nothing close to that. I removed text that merely gave dollar amounts spent by the entertainment industry versus the tech industry; text that left the incorrect implication that these were the spending figures on this legislation - contrary to what the Politico article was conveying. If lobbying & money related sourced content that is actually relevant to this legislation is added to the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I had it in a section entitled Lobbyists, campaign contributions and the revolving door -- is there something wrong with that or was that just a generic qualification, in case? I think neutral is good, thought we were there. On this at least.

Well, if I can stand in for the everyman, I didn't know what revolving door meant at first glance, so it may not be the best title. So maybe it's not a neutrality problem, just a...well, people being stupid problem. Also, three subject matters in the title sounds somewhat like the name of an essay or chapter, not the brutally bland subtitles we at Wikipedia are so famous for. Too poetic, my friend. You must squash such instincts. Sloggerbum (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on the introduction. I had it at three paragraphs before Xenephrenic undid a bunch of changes. Also see section below where I spell out my problem with one particular sentence, which I did remove again. I left the rest of the paragraph but don't feel it is anything to be proud of at all. However, the rest is not completely wrong. The thing is, there is *so* much controversy about the bill that it will be hard to summarize its language as the controversy revolves around precisely what its language means.

On splitting the page up, I see the concern but am not sure just now how to address it and really want to include a more complete mention of DNSSEC and DNS issues, which I think takes priority as it requires prior knowledge to summarize them well. So it will probably get bigger. One thought -- as a preliminary step, have a page about the bill and discussion of the effects it would have according to various people, and another page about the criticisms of the committees behaviour, including the lobbyist section and the failure to include internet community in the discussion of a bill which seems to definitely affect the ecosystem of the internet.

On the title, one thing I do acknowledge is that I had not included any discussion of revolving door behavior before I had to go. I think it might be clearer with that context but I am not especially attached to the language if you have a better idea. The only other description I can think of is "Influence" and that seems worse. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the lobbying & money content, how about this as an idea? Propose a paragraph or two here, with the sources to which it will be cited, and an appropriately worded subject header might well suggest itself from that content. Just a thought. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

legal expert: please review interpretive material on safe harbor, immunization of plaintiffs, streaming

The situation in a nutshell is that we have bill language that says it does one thing, and several opinions saying that the actual effect is different and worse. Thank you for any thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

US Congress expert

We appear to need a ruling on whether campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and revolving doors could possibly be relevant to the writing and chances for passage of this bill. I'll get the deleted numbers out of history when I am less discouraged but it was something on the order of 100 million this year and 200 million last year.Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet expert: please review discussion of IP blocking, DNS edits, DNSSEC and deep packet inspectiob

If you are able to explain harm DNSSEC easily please feel free. I can write this but it will take time.

Edit request 21 November 2011

There is a wiki link pointing to the wrong page in the DNS servers and security section. The link labeled Chinese DNS filters points to the Great Wall of China when it should instead point to the Great Firewall of China. 38.100.116.180 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Zidanie5 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)