# Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

Neutrality, please explain your drastic changes first before pushing them into the article. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summaries, your edits have massively removed well-sourced material and inserted content not directly supported by the cited source. Your seemingly random removals of text have resulted in quotes not supported by the citation used. Not cool. Neutralitytalk 22:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
As I have explained in my edit summary, my concern is that you are using sources that predate coverage of this article's subject. This risks introducing content forks, original research, outdated and unbalanced information. I have summarised the background using only sources that are more recent and relevant to this PAFACA. CurryCity (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This makes no sense whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia. Our policies aren't buzzwords to be invoked without explanation. Neutralitytalk 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Using outdated sources that do not mention an article's subject would allow anyone to add old information of their choosing to a new topic regardless of balance and due weight. CurryCity (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Which "sources" are "outdated" or "don't mention the article's subject"? What's "old information"? I have no clue what you are going on about. Is this some sort of strange dilatory tactic? Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ones that are old and not reporting on PAFACA were removed [1]. I have restored the Axios source because it was easily missed at first, but as you can see, most of the new ones you added that actually mention this latest bill I did not remove them. CurryCity (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
He’s obviously a Chinese bot @CurryCity.
You’re doing the right thing HeWhoKnowsTooMuch (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


### Individual concerns
List some of the other concerns you have because it is not easy to tell from edit summaries. CurryCity (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

First two sentences under "National security concerns": after your random removals, there are two quotes that do not appear in the cited source. Under "Response": you shoved in loaded, flagrantly POV language ("criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities") that is not supported by the cited source. If you edit, you need to have a firm grasp of the English language, and a firm grasp of Wikipedia policies, including the really basic stuff: everything needs to be directly supported by a cited source and we follow the neutral point of view. Neutralitytalk 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I have asked you politely to list the sentences and am asking you again to do so in a way that is easier to review. CurryCity (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
"criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities" What are your concerns and suggestion?

OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text, which you shoved into the article at least twice, was not supported by the cited source?  And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to post hoc support it?  And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is undue weight, and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. And, I'm not going to play whac-a-mole, statement-by-statement, like this. Just stop and familiarize yourself with core Wiki policies. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I only restored some of your changes and cannot be held responsible for every edit that happened before then, but clearly it was not in wikivoice in the first place [2] "Critics, however, objected to the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities", so your characterisation is inaccurate. CurryCity (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion going on here. The bill that was passed in the House on March 13 was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which didn't go anywhere. The bill that includes foreign aid that was passed in the House on April 20, passed in the Senate yesterday, and signed by the President today was the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, a separate piece of legislation. We already have Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, which is too long to cover all the details, but Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance was also just created; a merge discussion has been started at Talk:Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance#Merge proposal. I think either Proposed divestment... should be merged into Protecting Americans..., and that article be renamed 21st Century... (for the purpose of retaining history). Alternatively, we could merge both Protecting Americans... and Proposed divestment... into Restrictions on.... Thoughts from other editors are much appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Protecting bill" is notable independelty of "Restrictions", however "Proposed divestment" is unnotable.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: To explain, the bill that Biden signed into law today is the National Security Act, 2024. The House of Representatives amended the RELIEVE Act to include the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act referred to in the National Security Act is a separate legislative entity. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Wait, so the "Protecting" and "21st Century" acts are both part of the same National Security Act? If so, then let's move this article to National Security Act, 2024 and merge the info you had on the Proposed divestment article. In any case, we shouldn't have so many articles covering the same thing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act's provisions were merged into the National Security Act. The act, as passed by Biden, includes the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The National Security Act also includes the provisions for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It would be improper to move this page given that. I have created National Security Act, 2024 to cover the act's provisions, as it appears that such a substantial expenditure will have some impact on the war in Ukraine. I support merging this article into that one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
If the National Security Act includes both the Protecting Americans and 21st Century provisions, then I don't see why they can't co-exist on the same article about the foreign aid. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Please stop creating articles until we sort this out Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Ha, I've tried that one before. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I support the proposal that the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is renamed to whatever the name of the overarching legislation is (I am still a little confused on that), while Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance becomes a redirect (probably to the aforementioned article, but possibly to Restrictions on TikTok in the United States), with any relevant information merged into appropriate articles. Should a request be opened? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No, please don't. We can resolve this speedily through normal discussion; RM takes forever and only does a disservice to readers. If there are concerns after we sort this out, then an RM may be held, but I think there wouldn't be any opposition to fixing the current state of mess (which I too am confused with). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, alright. I think I agree with that. –Gluonz talk contribs 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I personally think this article stays where it is, it's clearly notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, which possible fix is your current preference? –Gluonz talk contribs 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@CurryCity:@Neutrality: these two have been significant contributors Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking we should move this article to whatever the final/overarching legislation is called, and then merge the contents of the other article(s) here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds great now just the probelm of what that is? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
If it is National Security Act, 2024, I think the article with more history (the one this talk is for) should be kept, and that it should be adapted with relevant information, such as from the article currently at National Security Act, 2024, which itself would be merged into the article. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This article can be renamed, its got the most history wise. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Consider that the National Security Act, 2024 is independently notable for its appropriations to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The TikTok portion of the bill is not the entirety of its scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
So we would rename the article and include information about those, while keeping the article that has the most history. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Then I guess we're back to my original alt proposal to reverse-merge the "Proposed divestment" article into here, and then move it to a generic title like Proposed TikTok ban in the United States (I think calling this a "proposal ... by ByteDance" is ambiguous). Even if it's not exactly a ban, it effectively is, and it's already demonstrably the common name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(This is under my assumption that "Protecting" and "21st Century" are two completely separate entities. If this isn't accurate, please correct me.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
We are? I had not been mentioning that article. I am not so sure we should give this a generic title, but I suppose we can. –Gluonz talk contribs 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a generic name. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was referring to the original merge discussion on that page. My number one preference is still to rename this to the "final" iteration of the legislation, but apparently that final form is the National Security Act that includes the foreign aid package (which is why they were able to pass this so quickly), and an editor believes we should have separate articles for the act as a whole and its two TikTok provisions (Protecting and 21st Century). The alternative to a generic title would be Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, which obviously wouldn't work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Why should we have separate articles for the Act as a whole and its TikTok-related provisions? I believe they could be under one article. –Gluonz talk contribs 21:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the best course is to merge/redirecting this article on previous proposals to the enacted version. It can be discussed in a "legislative history" section. Neutralitytalk 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 Wait a minute, according to this source, the National Security Act contains four bills, three of which are about foreign aid and the last of which is the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, "which includes a modified version of the TikTok ban that passed the House earlier this year". It seems this article should remain at its current title and its contents be adjusted accordingly. Not sure whether National Security Act, 2024 should exist as a separate page or be merged here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The final legislation contains four primary divisions, as the article mentions. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and 21st Century Peace through Strength Act exist in the National Security Act. The sanctions against Iran, Syria, and Hamas in the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act do not appear to warrant a separate article. The independent Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act did not officially pass in the Senate, only the version mentioned in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Based on my understanding, the Protecting act was modified and incorporated into the 21st Century act, which was then passed as part of the National Security Act that Biden signed today. Is that correct? So, since the 21st Century act includes other things unrelated to TikTok, as does the National Security Act that includes three other bills, this article should stay as it is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act that was passed in March is not the same entity as the act that was passed in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter though, 21st Century just includes a "modified version" of PAFACA. We can't name this article 21st Century because it includes other unrelated things, and we can't call this article National Security Act because it also includes other things. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Well ... I mean, I guess it would be OK to move this to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act and briefly discuss the non-TikTok information. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose that this article be merged into the National Security Act article and the divestment article remain as it is in order to encompass any legal challenges in greater detail; the National Security Act is not all about TikTok. InfiniteNexus, I ask that you reconsider your bold redirect until this has been discussed in full. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
So now you believe there should not be separate articles for the National Security Act as a whole and the PAFACA/21st Century bill? If so, just copy-and-paste the contents of that new page, redirect it here, and then we can move this page there. I'm not sure what you mean by my BOLD redirect of the Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance page, which consensus had already decided shouldn't exist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No. The National Security Act article needs to cover the entirety of that act's provisions, without additional weight for the TikTok divestment portion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Re-reading your comment. You seem to be saying there should be one article about the National Security Act and another about the TikTok bill(s). Regardless of what the latter article is titled, it should result from a move of this page because it has the oldest history.
In sum, our three options are:
Remain at Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the original bill
Move to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which includes a modified version of the above
Merge with National Security Act, 2024, which includes the "21st Century" bill
Move to a generic name for the 2024 effort to ban TikTok in the U.S.
Given this turns out to be a quite complicated matter, I would be open to an RM after all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Came here via New Page Patrol. I agree a separate article is warranted for National Security Act, 2024, versus Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. But I think the name of this article is wrong as the scope appears to be all legislation the US passed or considered passing that bans TikTok, not one specific bill, and it should be titled as such. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
That article already exists. It is Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, with information dating back to the Trump administration. This article (regardless of what it ends up being titled) is about the recent (2024) effort to ban TikTok. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Let's take a moment so determin if the other bills in the National Security Act are even notable as opposed to this one which is very clearly notable.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that determining the notability of the other bills is important. I support a move to National Security Act, 2024, so long as its other provisions are notable enough to warrant this. –Gluonz talk contribs 12:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In the alternative case, the article currently at National Security Act, 2024 could be redirected and the existing article kept at its current title. If the National Security Act is notable enough to have its own article but not a substantial amount of content, the status quo could be kept with both articles remaining. I do not support a move to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, as that is at an intermediate level in the hierarchy of this law. Moving to a generic name is an opinion if the above options do not work out. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There's only one enacted act. The text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text) clarifies. The final legislation (inartfully called H.R. 815, long title "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes" but usually just called the 2024 national security supplemental) incorporates different (formerly separate) pieces of legislation as separate "divisions." So the TikTok provisions are Division H of the Act, the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act is Division D, the Israel aid is Division A, the Ukraine aid is Division B, the Taiwan aide is Division C, etc. I think it's most more efficient to handle all in one unified article, with separate subsections. Neutralitytalk 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
"DIVISION H—PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT" appears to be part of "DIVISION D—21ST CENTURY PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH ACT", according to the table of contents nested under Division D. The White House calls the overall legislation H.R. 815; I don't see any mention of "National Security Act" and am wondering where ElijahPepe came up with that. That is basically what was already established above: there was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was then incorporated into the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which was then incorporated into H.R.815 (a.k.a. "National Security Act"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I found it: [3]. This Act may be cited as the "National Security Act, 2024" InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Slight correction, an amended version of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was included in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act. The distinction is important, because what the House passed independently and what appeared in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act are different, even without consideration for the extended timeframe for ByteDance to divest TikTok. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Remain or rename. The efforts to ban TikTok since late 2023 are notable due to the heavy media coverage. The other acts are there only to fast-track this. They have very different purpose, background, and legislative histories and are not nearly as notable without the part about banning TikTok.Newsback (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


### Proposal to merge into National Security Act, 2024 and create TikTok divestment article
It seems US is just going to ignore the lawsuit because there’s no consequence for ignoring it ((they are not paying a fine to China) Unlike Trump’s attempt, this one is different because it happened after the bill was passed. Because of that, there’s nothing China can do when US is ignoring the lawsuit. Worse case scenario, war. Besides war, there’s nothing China can do to the US) and upheld the legislation. Source from Reddit and this news (links below).
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1cmgai8/tiktok_sues_us_government_saying_potential_ban/?rdt=33288&sort=confidence 
https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/tiktoks-lawsuit-challenging-potential-us-ban-very-much-a-landmark-case-expert-says-congress-chinese-social-media-influence-bytedance-national-security-first-amendment-free-speech-legal-implications-harvard-law-brown-university 
Biden Ignoring The Lawsuit: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-super-pac-joins-tiktok-201635285.html
New source that relates to what I said: https://www.deltaplexnews.com/tiktok-sues-to-block-potential-ban-can-it-win/
69.1.59.248 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, what are you proposing is changed in the article? –Gluonz talk contribs 15:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Just add that Biden ignoring the lawsuit and US is instead upheld the legislation in the lawsuit section of the article according to the sources I put above. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems like WP:SYNTH and also reddit is unreliable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done The U.S. cannot "ignore the lawsuit". A judge has the ability to deem the law unconstitutional, and the evidence provided by ByteDance suggesting that is insurmountable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The section on national security concerns are precisely such concerns as raised in the context of PAFACA and everything cited seems to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in an impartial. Also, Congressional Research Service reports are not "too closely associated with the subject" in this instance. CRS reports have been discussed previously on WP:RSN and are found to be reliable. - Amigao (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

CRS is very closely associated and comes with a disclaimer in every report that I've seen. "It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in  a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role." There is also a due weight issue. Only some of the reports mention PAFACA with the rest predating the act. Picking out passages from separate reports and combining them involves original research and creates a content fork. CurryCity (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
CRS is an extremely reliable source. They are non-partisan researchers that do a fantastic job. They are basically a really good think tank. Seeing an undue weight tag with a comment about being concerned about CRS surprises me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
If it is, why are none of the following reflected? This is a rather huge and strange omission, considering the newly added information is longer than most other sections of this article.
Banning TikTok won’t solve social media’s foreign influence, teen harm and data privacy problems
The U.S.’s TikTok ban is full of contradictions
A new law will ban TikTok unless China sells most of it. An expert says it’s ‘unconstitutional’ and backed by no evidence
The TikTok Ban Is a Disaster, Even if You Support It
Is TikTok a National Security Threat?
Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear
What TikTok means for national security is heavily debated, but going through the newly added information, almost everything is written to amplify concerns without providing any other perspective. It's undue to rely on CRS so heavily. CurryCity (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As the editor who made the expansions using the CRS reports, I would simply say that nothing is stopping you from adding summaries of the content of those links if you believe that undue weight has been given to the CRS reports since the sources you want cited appear to be reliable.
I expanded the "National security concerns" subsection because the version of the article before the CRS content was added did not adequately articulate what the national security concerns of the U.S. government were, which is entirely consistent with what the disclaimer you've cited recommends using CRS reports for. I would also note that WP:UNDUE explicitly states: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
I also believe that CRS reports are reliable sources, and it is unclear why the fact that some of the CRS reports do not mention PAFACA qualify as a WP:UNDUE violation since the content of the section is not about the provisions of PAFACA but the national security concerns broadly that motivated its passage. As for your original research assertions, WP:NOR is only violated when material is combined "from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." All of the content added that cites the CRS reports reiterates statements or conclusions explicitly stated by the sources, so the content in the section does not qualify as original research.
As such, I believe that the tag should be removed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The "National security concerns" background subsection should primarily include information explicitly tied to national security. That's why I mentioned original research in addition to undue, which may be mitigated as you have mentioned.
How much weight is appropriate also depends on the article. If this were an article about TikTok controversies, then we can include many details. Otherwise it takes due weight away from PAFACA itself. CurryCity (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the subject of the article is not TikTok controversies broadly and is about the PAFACAA. However, it does not violate WP:UNDUE for the article to discuss the stated reasons by U.S. federal government officials and members of Congress that motivated the passage of the law. In addition to the CRS reports, the section also cites the official House of Representatives report that accompanied the bill when it was passed, which includes sections titled "Purpose and Summary" and "Background and Need for Legislation"—which is to say, the explicit reasons the House cited for the bill's passage.
The incidents cited in the CRS reports about the data of Americans American users and American journalists being accessed is also cited in the HR report. Also, as the disclaimer you cited notes, information included in CRS reports is provided to members of Congress to inform its policymaking, so there is no reason to exclude the content from those reports since they presumably also informed the creation of the law. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also add that the incidents your edit summaries refer to as being the same were in fact separate incidents. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There was only one case of tracking journalists. CurryCity (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
w@CommonKnowledgeCreator 2600:8804:8BC0:3C00:5153:9B10:4B12:B40B (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


### reliability of CRS statements
I removed this because if you were to verify its sources on page 4, it points you to these three articles[4][5][6]. None of which seems to support PRC officials have referred to ByteDance as a PRC company. The New York Times described ByteDance as a Chinese company, but NYT is not a PRC official. CurryCity (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I restored the previous version with a modification per your concerns. The sources do not have a specific quotation of PRC officials referring to ByteDance as a PRC company, but the sources do indicate that the rest of what the CRS report says about PRC officials saying that the company would be obligated to comply with PRC export regulations is correct. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There is something wrong with this information or its source as well. I don't see anything related on page 13 or any other page unless I've missed it. CurryCity (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also reviewed the source. I likewise don't see what they're referring to. We can leave the content that cited it out of the article going forward. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They also made it sound like Chew lied but he was quoting the Citizen Lab almost verbatim.[7] CurryCity (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Chew may have quoted their published findings verbatim in his testimony, but the previous summary was a fair and accurate description of how the Citizen Lab's researchers felt the company was misusing and mischaracterizing their research as reported by TechCrunch. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Their feelings aside, Chew referred to their research only in the few lines that he quoted verbatim, which were probably less than 1% of his entire testimony. CurryCity (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Per my previous comment below, how much of Chew's testimony he spent discussing the Citizen Lab research is not relevant to the issue of undue weight. Since the incident is cited in one of the CRS reports, the information was presented to members of the U.S. Congress and presumably informed the decision to pass PAFACA. As such, that specific controversy cannot be being given undue weight under WP:UNDUE given the prominence of the U.S. government's viewpoint about the national security concerns about TikTok that motivated the passage of PAFACA. Also, the researchers' response to Chew's characterization of their research was a topic Chew was questioned about further during his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee per the hearing's transcript after his opening statement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if CRS or HR reports are secondary, they may sometimes be less reliable as a result. For example the HR report quotes other lawmakers and agencies extensively, meaning it's often functioning as a primary source. It has quoted a Department of Commerce memo that contains close to a dozen references to the deprecated Epoch Times. These chains of citations going from The Epoch Times to government documents to other news outlets or think tanks can obfuscate the original source. CurryCity (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope. WP:SECONDARY states "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Wikipedia content policy makes it perfectly clear what constitutes a secondary source, and the CRS reports and the HR report both clearly qualify as secondary sources. Additionally, WP:RSPRIMARY states "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred"—which is to say secondary sources are always considered more reliable than primary sources per Wikipedia content guidelines. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're not using the analysis evaluation interpretation or synthesis parts of a secondary source when you quote what it quotes directly. If you use HR reports to quote The Epoch Times, that can be less reliable than a non-Epoch Times primary source about the same material.
HR reports are not even reliable sources. They are written by lawmakers who proposed a bill such as PAFACA. CurryCity (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It is hardly clear that when you simply reiterate what the secondary source says that you are not citing its interpretation or synthesis. It's also unclear that HR reports are not reliable sources for determining legislative intent and investigative findings on a specific subject per the Library of Congress web page about them, which is what the HR report is being used for in this article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@CurryCity: Unless you have further issues with the remaining content, I believe we can and should remove the NPOV tag.
As I noted before, what WP:UNDUE actually requires is that articles represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources such that minority views or aspects do not receive as detailed of descriptions. The views of the various U.S. government officials cited in the subsection are unquestionably the most prominent viewpoints articulating the national security concerns about TikTok that motivated the passage of PAFACA, and as such, the incidents and controversies cited by the CRS reports and in the official House of Representatives report that accompanied PAFACA, cannot be being given undue weight by summarizing them in the article. To be sure, the company's views about the concerns raised and the incidents cited should be reflected for the purpose of balance pursuant to the WP:NPOV policy, but where the company has presented counterarguments, they already appear to be reflected in the current of the revision of article since they are usually cited in the CRS reports anyway.
While the criticism of the national security concerns from cybersecurity experts outside of the U.S. government and TikTok should not necessarily be ignored, the cybersecurity analysis cited in news reports (which are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY) are typically only the views of individual persons rather than a survey opinion of the members of some professional or academic association of cybersecurity experts or some of kind of systematic review of cybersecurity research. By contrast, the views articulated by the U.S. government officials reflect the research of the many cybersecurity professionals who work for various U.S. government agencies, and CRS reports are secondary sources written by experts in their respective fields reviewing news and research conducted by others. As such, the views of individual cybersecurity experts should not be given greater weight than the views expressed by the U.S. government officials. The current revision reflects this disparity in prominence.
Please discuss first if you have further issues with the current content before removing it. Conversely, if you wish to summarize the paywalled sources that you provided before, or have additional reliable sources that provide greater balance, then feel free to be bold to add summaries of them to the article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the content as well and not that simple to determine. CRS reports can also be primary if quoting other sources verbatim and are used verbatim here. Their analysts do work for Congress and can make mistakes, especially if other workers such as interns write most of the initial draft. CurryCity (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
See my previous comment about WP:SECONDARY. Per WP:REPUTABLE, the CRS does has have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If there is a factual error in a CRS report, that content can be removed, but CRS reports are always secondary sources since the researchers there are not doing original research or news reporting. As such, CRS reports are reliable sources under WP:RS. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Worth mentioning again that CRS have been found to be reliable on past WP:RSN discussions. That said, the place to discuss their overall reliability is really WP:RSN, not here. - Amigao (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the expansion by CommonKnowledgeCreator is problematic. Most background sections provide a summary of various concerns and viewpoints. What CommonKnowledgeCreator has added is way too detailed even compared to the actual PAFACA sections.Newsback (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's hardly clear that the last revision of the article that I edited was provided excessive detail in the "Prior regulatory actions" and "National security concerns" subsections under Wikipedia content policy and content editing guidelines. While WP:EXCESSDETAIL recommends against including excessive detail, it provides no criteria for identifying content that qualifies as excessive detail. WP:INDISCRIMINATE deals with inclusion of data, statistics, and information better suited to databases than to an encyclopedia, and as such, does not clearly apply to the content that was included in the subsections. Relatedly, the word count of the last revision of the article that I edited was only 4,409 words, while WP:SIZERULE recommends that articles that have word counts less than 6,000 words are not at a length that "justif[ies] division or trimming."
MOS:MISC recommends against including miscellaneous facts and examples following the rationale of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but as I noted in this thread above, the content covered included in the "National security concerns" subsection were specifically cited by PAFACA's official House of Representatives report that accompanied the bill when it was passed and in the CRS reports about TikTok and PAFACA. The incidents and controversies referred to in the subsection were part of the official U.S. government rationale of what motivated the passage of the law. The HR report and CRS reports cite additional events, incidents, and controversies that also motivated the passage of the law that were not covered in the subsection. The ones that were covered were only a selection of what is included in the reports, and they were selected only as concrete counterexamples of the criticism of the law that argued that the national security concerns about data collection and covert content manipulation were hypothetical.
Additionally, the events and topics summarized in the "Prior regulatory actions" subsection was limited to specific U.S. federal government actions taken before the passage of the law—including some of which had been blocked in the U.S. federal courts and likewise motivated the passage of the law. The CRS reports discuss these in far greater detail, and there are also CRS reports that discuss U.S. state government actions which are discussed in the Restrictions on TikTok in the United States article that I consciously chose to not include. As such, I do not believe that the content that was included in either subsection would qualify as miscellaneous facts and examples under MOS:MISC.
Please cite specific content that you believe qualifies as excessive detail or miscellaneous facts before removing them again, because under WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:SIZERULE, there was no justification for the removals. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It is a complex topic that merits a good deal of detail. - Amigao (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
In terms of establishing the basis for the law, I think this is getting into far too much detail that fails as a summary of the reasons the law was introduced. Yes, some of the previous attempts to block TikTok should be mentioned, as well as some of the legal basis that is claimed for the law being constitutional, but the bulk of the body is written with far too much news detail that is an issue of RECENTISM/NOTNEWS, and an overreliance on the CRS reports (themselves fine as a sources, but we should still be seeking to summarize them). Particularly as we have the SCTOUS case itself and at least one page specific to government attempts to restrict TikTok. WP is not a law journal, nor are we considered legal experts, so we should be focused more on what reliable sources summarize. --Masem (t) 06:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I'd just reiterate what I've already said about WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:SIZERULE since WP:SUMMARY refers to WP:AS as part of its rationale, and there is no policy or guideline that specifies what constitutes excessive detail and only article length. As such, it is not clear that under Wikipedia content editing guidelines that the "Prior regulatory actions" and "National security concerns" subsections fail as a summary. Since the law is not an event or a breaking news story, it is not clear how the subsections are violating WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, or WP:RECENTISM, and discussing the body of the rest of the article is beyond the subject of this thread. As I noted before, the Restrictions on TikTok in the United States article covers more than federal policy, and all the current "Prior regulatory actions" subsection attempts to do is cover prior federal policies that predated PAFACA as part of the policy background that ultimately culminated in the law.
However, following WP:EXCESSDETAIL, I would argue that the law's constitutional basis would be better discussed in the TikTok v. Garland article since the lawsuit is about the constitutionality of the law. While I certainly agree that Wikipedia is not an official journal, legal code, or law report, enough of our fellow editors seemed to believe that saying so should not be a matter of content policy. However, like discussing the body of the rest of the article in this thread, it's not clear what relevance the question of PAFACA's general notability as a topic per WP:N to warrant an article has to do with whether the "Prior regulatory actions" and "National security concerns" subsections have excessive detail since their connection to the topic's notability is fairly clear. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You're heading towards original research and WP:RGW territory trying to use these details yourself as a way to refute national security concerns being hypothetical, which would not be necessary anyways because we have attributed the criticism properly. I still believe WP:UNDUE applies here because the amount of information you have added has greatly altered the prominence of different sections of this article by picking CRS and HR sources written specifically for national security concerns. In many RS articles[8][9][10][11] about the bill/law, background arguments take up a much smaller proportion. CurryCity (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said before, WP:NOR is only violated when material is combined "from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." All of the content added that cites the CRS reports reiterates statements or conclusions explicitly stated by the sources, so the content in the section does not qualify as original research. As for WP:RGW, the purpose was not to refute the criticism of the arguments but to explain the national security concerns in more concrete details because, prior to the expansions, the section was fairly light on details and left the reader with only a minimal understanding of what the disagreement over the concerns were—which is perfectly in line with WP:DETAIL and WP:NPOV). Given that one of the primary justifications that motivated the passage of the law were national security concerns, it's hardly clear why the expansions constitute a WP:UNDUE violation. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
NOR can be violated by going off on semi-related tangents to a degree not covered by reliable sources. Masem (t) 15:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The national security concerns about TikTok are not tangential to PAFACA. The CRS reports and the HR report discuss them extensively and directly in conjunction with the bill. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
There's no direct policy I can point to, only that we function as an encyclopedia and meant to summarize what RSes say about a topic. Have any RSes gone into this much detail about these issues directly in conjunction with the law? If not, its probably not appropriate for us to go into that much detail. And no, just because some sources might state issues around there being national security concerns doesn't mean that's free use to suddenly have a huge section about possible national security concerns from sources about these that are not in conjunction with the bill. That's treading towards SYNTH and OR. Narratively, some aspects from these sources might be necessary to help with flow of information, but not the massive wall of what is effectively off-topic material. — Masem (t) 14:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The CRS reports and the HR report do go into the national security concerns in extensive detail and directly in conjunction with the bill so it is not SYNTH, OR, or off-topic. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The HR report is not an independent source, so we should be very careful from pulling too much from it. While the CSRs are not, pulling a lot of information from a couple of reports from other sources is really putting a lot of excessive weight on those, compared to what has been reported by other reliable sources which go into far less detail. It is not how an encyclopedia article should be written and feels more like a law journal article. Masem (t) 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It's hardly clear that CRS reports are more independent than HR reports since the CRS works directly for members of Congress and its congressional committees, and as I've already noted, the HR report is only being used to determine legislative intent and the investigative findings on a specific subject. Using it for that purpose would appear to be perfectly consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (since both are secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
We should not be using the HR report on the House's rationale to document their intent, its like using a court decision to document a court decision - it is a primary source and while it can be used to fill in gaps, we should absolutely not be weighing heavily on it as an encyclopedia, but use what other reliable sources highlight as the key points from it. CRS is less of a problem normally because those reports tend to try to cover the gambit of the topic, without trying to justify any course of action or the like. But even at the end, that is just one/two sources, and does not reflect how the rest of the world has treated this topic. The big issue here is just how excessively details those sections are with the heavy weight given to the CRS sourcing - as I said, it does not read like an encyclopedic approach but a law school essay. Its definitely touching the bounds of both NPOV and NOR issues, but mostly is against what Summary Style suggests what is appropriate for an article. Masem (t) 18:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." While the passage of PAFACA may qualify as an "event" that falls within the scope of WP:EVENT, the HR report is not the law itself, and the law itself is not clearly an "event" since it is not an occurrence of any kind but an abstract thing. Even if I was willing to concede that the HR report is a primary source for the congressional committee's legislative intent and investigative findings on a specific subject, I don't see how WP:SUMMARY is implicated here because that has to do with levels detail separately from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
You say that it reads like a law review journal, but there are no conclusions being drawn from the sources in how they are summarized in the article that the sources themselves do not explicitly state so it is hardly clear that it violates WP:NOR. As for your WP:UNDUE concerns, I would just reiterate much of what I've already said in this thread about prominence of viewpoints, and that the cybersecurity analysis cited in news reports (which despite being independent sources are still primary sources per WP:PRIMARY) are typically only the views of individual persons rather than a survey opinion of the members of some professional or academic association of cybersecurity experts or some of kind of systematic review of cybersecurity research. It is hardly clear that there are any independent sources that would exist for the legislative intent of the law under WP:RS beyond highly general and non-specific descriptions of the national security concerns that are found in the news reporting that are not particularly informative.
Also, if the HR report is not a secondary source and to be only minimally used, it is not clear that there are any other secondary sources about this topic beyond the CRS reports. After doing a cursory search of Google Scholar using the search terms "TikTok", "national security", "United States", and "PAFACA", and with or without "systematic review", for results since 2021, I find only 7 search results and none of which has PAFACA as its subject. Likewise, if I search for books on Amazon.com with "TikTok", "national security", "United States", and "PAFACA" as search terms, only 3 search results are returned and none of which are clearly related to the topic. If I use the full title of the bill as a search term in Google Scholar or on Amazon.com for books, only 2 search results combined are returned, only 1 of which even mentions PAFACA, and is not clearly a reliable source.
However, this is related to the larger WP:NOT issue that you've raised. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for statutes, regulations, executive orders, public policies, case law, treaties, trade agreements, international laws, laws-of-war, customary laws, and so on, and as such, only the general notability guideline (WP:N) applies to these topics. Were we to follow the letter of WP:N, as it appears that you are implying we should when you say that the content of these subsections is not encyclopedic, and only permit articles and article sections that are based on topics with significant coverage in published secondary and independent sources that have been determined to be reliable due to having reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, I do not believe that current articles about PAFACA and TikTok v. Garland would qualify as notable topics let alone the national security concerns and prior federal regulatory actions related to TikTok.
In fact, if the letter of WP:N was followed more broadly about laws and public policies, I believe that the scope of topics that would be permitted to have Wikipedia articles would be dramatically restricted, and in ways that may not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia if the purpose of Wikipedia is to "[give] free access to the sum of all human knowledge" per WP:PRIME if no secondary independent sources ever emerge about these topics. Among other reasons, this is why I have argued that there should be specific content policy and content editing guidance for articles about topics like this one, and specific content policy language that clarifies that Wikipedia is not a government gazette, law report, or legal code. It would expedite deletions and make clearer what specific topics should be covered and how to cover them. (However, I'm sure my preferences about these things would be reflexively opposed by the community since that's my track record on community talk pages.)
Apologies for the lengthy reply, but you mentioned a number of interrelated policy issues that I felt needed a more considered and thoughtful response. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
More importantly, the HR report is not independent since it written by the same people that drafted the bill. While we can use first-party sources, they should be very limited and particularly should not be introducing claims as fact within the article. The body that is CSR is sufficient independent from the House of Reps, though we should still consider them attached to the US govt and be careful around its usage (not that it can't be used at all).
After doing a cursory search of Google Scholar using the search terms "TikTok", "national security", "United States", and "PAFACA", and with or without "systematic review", for results since 2021, I find only 7 search results and none of which has PAFACA as its subject. Likewise, if I search for books on Amazon.com with "TikTok", "national security", "United States", and "PAFACA" as search terms, only 3 search results are returned and none of which are clearly related to the topic.  This tells me that you have focused too narrowing on how the CRS reports covers it and not how sources broadly cover it, making it UNDUE coverage. If this discussion was readily found in sources, then yes, maybe a lengthy discussion is appropriate, but you've fixated on one facet that's just not covered with the same weight as other aspects of the law. You cannot create this type of extensive coverage when only a handful of sources covering the topic do not incorporate it.
Remember that our audience is the general reader. While you might think that you are not making any conclusions and thus you don't think it looks like a law journal article, it still has the style and approach that I see in the bodies of these type of articles, which is far beyond what we would expect a general reader to want to read. Basically, its a similar problem to what Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable outlines for mathematic and scientific articles; those editors really into those topics want to write a level they know about, not at the level we expect them to write about. I don't know if you are involved in any way in the legal industry, but the way that this is all written feels like you want to write at a level a legal scholar would want to see, but that's not the same as what our readership is. Masem (t) 02:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
While you might think that you are not making any conclusions and thus you don't think it looks like a law journal article, it still has the style and approach that I see in the bodies of these type of articles, which is far beyond what we would expect a general reader to want to read. ... I don't know if you are involved in any way in the legal industry, but the way that this is all written feels like you want to write at a level a legal scholar would want to see, but that's not the same as what our readership is. While I appreciate the implicit compliment of my writing, I am a two-time college dropout who has never been employed by a law firm and did not attend law school, so no, I am not attempting to write the article at the level that a legal scholar or attorney would find helpful but instead for the general reader as an American citizen. Likewise, despite having read a few law review articles for the purpose of contributing to specific Wikipedia articles, I have no idea what the general style and approach that law review journals are supposed to follow. This tells me that you may be a little too focused on WP:NOR concerns.
As for the WP:UNDUE concern that you've raised, I would simply reiterate that there appears to be no secondary sources about the law in general and not just the national security concerns that motivated its passage other than the CRS reports. As far as I can tell, all of the citations included in the current revision of the article other than the CRS and HR report references appear to be either news reports or analysis articles. However, per WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSEDITORIAL, while "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact", "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact".
If I were to follow your reasoning, what you would be suggesting then is that much of the content in the entire article, and basically the entire "National security concerns" subsection, should be removed per WP:RS since much of the content is actually based around analysis articles rather than news reports or secondary sources. However, the national security concerns were the principal motivation behind the law as has been widely noted in news reports and analysis articles, and I think instead that it would be a rather odd omission to the general reader for the article to not have a subsection discussing the national security concerns at some length, and as such, would not be in the best interest of the article to remove the content. I think all that needs to be done is care for a balanced description of disputes per WP:NPOV. Among other reasons, this is why I mentioned why there should be specific content policy and content editing guidance related to these types of topics like having a subject-specific notability guideline. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If we do not have many secondary or independent sources giving that much detail on the analysis of the national security concerns, it is not our place to turn to primary or dependent sources to provide that; that's not how we summarize sources, and that's introducing a level of OR and/or POV in that you (as the editor here) are assigning more weight to that analysis than what sources provide. I'm not saying that we cannot mention any national security concerns, but should be at no more the same level that a broad range of sources discussing the national security issues with the bill give it as to properly summarize and to avoid any type of personal importance/creation of OR/POV.
Now, perhaps in time we will see law journal articles (which will be independent and seconary), in the context of the law or the SCOTUS case, give more attention to the national security aspects, which could be a basis then to expand, but we can't judge that now.
this is all standard WP writing principles, it doesn't need any special policy or guideline. Masem (t) 04:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Nope. WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS requires that "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone… editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", while WP:DETCON requires "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Additionally, WP:NOCOMMON recommends that "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues, and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense", and also strongly suggests that "Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that." In other words, content policies and content editing guidelines must always be cited in talk page discussions per Wikipedia conduct policy.
As for your WP:NOR assertions, they remain unsubstantiated as you have not provided specific examples of content from the subsection which clearly violate the policy per WP:FOC and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. As far as I can tell, your NOR assertions have only been about the reliability of the sources cited themselves, not the content of the sources as summarized in the Wikipedia article–which is what WP:NOR actually says and is about. This is especially important for your WP:SYNTH assertions since, as WP:NOTSYNTH explains, SYNTH is not presumed, is not obvious, is not summary, is not mere juxtaposition, is not primarily point-by-point, is not NPOV when it is point-by-point, is not a policy, and is not a rigid rule. While WP:NOTSYNTH may be an essay, it is an explanatory essay under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL–which implies that it does have wide acceptance with the Wikipedia community as a supplement and clarification for WP:SYNTH. As I've noted before in this thread, none of the content in the "National security concerns" subsection appears to be drawing conclusions and making assertions that are not explicitly stated by the sources, and as WP:NOTSYNTH states "…in any disagreement, the… burden of proof is on the person making the claim"–which is to say, you.
As for your interrelated WP:UNDUE and WP:RS assertions, WP:NPOVHOW requires "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." In other words, content should only be removed if it can be demonstrated that the content cannot be rewritten from the existing sources or with material from other sources to produce balance.
It is not clear to me that the current revision of the "National security concerns" subsection is not balanced because, as I've already noted in this thread, where the company or outside cybersecurity professionals have presented counterarguments to the U.S. federal government officials, they already appear to be reflected in the current of the revision of article, impartially and with attribution per WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since they are usually cited in the CRS reports to begin with or in primary sources that are either reliable for statements of fact or statements made by individual persons per WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSEDITORIAL. As WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD notes, "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used."
As for your assertions about the current use and reliability of the HR report as a source, the publisher of the report is not the House Energy and Commerce Committee that wrote the report, but the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO). WP:IDSPS provides "Identifying a self-published source usually [requires] two pieces of information: (1) Who is the author or creator of the work? (2) Who is the publisher of the work?". While the report may not be an independent source since GPO is closely affiliated with the author(s) (as it is part of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government), the report is not self-published by the Committee itself on a blog or website. However, WP:IS notes "Independence alone is not a guarantee that the source is accurate or reliable for a given purpose", and WP:NIS provides "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, [if] the connection of the source to the topic [is] clearly identified."
Similarly, WP:RSOPINION states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion", while WP:BIASEDSOURCES states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." As I have already noted in this thread, the HR report is mainly being used to determine legislative intent and committee findings on a specific subject, so even if it is a primary and non-independent source, it is hardly clear to me that if it is properly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV that there is a WP:UNDUE violation. All that would appear to imply for the current revision of the article under WP:NPOVHOW is rewriting for attribution, not wholesale removal of content from the "National security concerns" subsection.
As for using the CRS reports in the "Prior regulatory actions" subsection, they do go into this topic in conjunction with PAFACA, and it's not clear why additional primary or secondary sources are really needed for this section because CRS reports have been determined to be reliable sources and the claims being made are not exceptional and do not appear to be in dispute. As a side-note, my Google Search and Amazon searches were based on the previous assertion you made that just because some sources might state issues around there being national security concerns doesn't mean that's free use to suddenly have a huge section about possible national security concerns from sources about these that are not in conjunction with the bill. As such, your assertion That this tells me that you have focused too narrowing on how the CRS reports covers it and not how sources broadly cover it, making it UNDUE coverage is likewise ultimately based on your own assertions, not any focus or assertions of mine.
Apologies again for the lengthy reply, but you made a number of interrelated assertions based upon assumptions about the content policies that do not appear to be justified by what the policies actually say–which is why conduct policy requires that you cite them in talk page discussions. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I have more to comment on but a quick problem: The HR report may be published by the GPO, but the authorship is the House of Reps, and that is how we evaluate independent vs dependent. That's clearly obvious why it is a problem. — Masem (t) 22:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
First, I'm not claiming the HR report is independent to be clear so we don't have a disagreement about that. Second, take your time to fully articulate yourself your concerns; I don't have a problem reading lengthy comments if they are policy-based since that's what WP:CON requires in talk page discussions. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
As I have said before primary or secondary depends on the content and usage. For you to quote HR reports, which are close to the bill/law itself, it would be considered primary usage. Since HR reports are not independently reliable, basing the weights for this article's sections on them as opposed to general-audience RS would be undue. CurryCity (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
See my previous reply to Masem. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Some summarization may be needed but the latest attempt at that introduced verbiage in WP:WIKIVOICE that is not quite NPOV and will need to be tweaked to get to NPOV standards. - Amigao (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for original research here, I'm asking if any reliable sources have said which one it is.
The reason this is important is that if it's 1 million active users worldwide, then there could be a lot of social media sites that could be eligible for being banned, only up to the president's discretion. For reference, these are very rough estimates of worldwide active users:

TikTok — 1.5 billion active users
WeChat — 1.25 billion active users
Kuaishou — 700 million active users
Tencent QQ — 600 million active users
Weibo — 600 million active users
Qzone — 600 million active users
Tencent Video — 500 million active users
Youku — 500 million active users
Bilibili — 400 million active users
Xigua Video — 130 million active users
Zhihu — 80 million active users
Douban — 60 million active users
Baidu Tieba — 50 million active users
Meipai — 50 million active users
And that's just the easy ones I could find from China, it doesn't include any from the other foreign adversaries Russia, Iran, or North Korea. --Hirsutism (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The bill only specifies users without saying US or worldwide. Likely implies worldwide but until we see any other service called out to this bill we won't know the intent. — Masem (t) 19:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 10:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Governor Sheng (talk · contribs) 07:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead
 Passed
Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead section should avoid using citations or notes, if the article is not controversial. I don't see that being the case here.
Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the lead is too lengthy. As the article isn't long, I think the lead can fit into 200 words. Right now, there are 434 words, more than recommended.
Per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should be phrased differently, so that a nonspecialist reader might be introduced to the topic. My suggestion is: The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law on April 24, 2024, as part of Public Law 118-50, bans social networking services within 270 days if determined by the president and relevant provisions to be a "foreign adversary controlled application," with a potential 90-day extension, encompassing websites and application software, including mobile apps" or "The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law on April 24, 2024, bans social networking services within 270 days if the president deems them a "foreign adversary controlled application," with a possible 90-day extension, covering websites and apps" to keep it simple. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: got it down to around 270 words. Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 03:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Background
 Passed
The section doesn't have any references. Also, I recommend using just China for the PRC and avoiding linking to it per MOS:OL. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Prior regulatory actions
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

National security concerns
 Passed
Link to the PRC is unnecessary, also using common name – China – is preferable.
BytDance should have been linked when mentioned for the first time in the chapter above.
"Cybersecurity studies have shown that TikTok collects less data, more data, or as much data as its competitors." - Can the nominator explain this sentence a bit? --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Criticism
 Passed
Using "China" to "PRC" is preferable. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Pro-Palestine hashtags
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Provisions
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

House of Representatives
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Senate
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Lobbying
 Passed
Link the Knight First Amendment Institute, and remove it from the "Response" section. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Response
 Passed
Remove the Knight First Amendment Institute link, and add it to the section above. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

done Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 17:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Israel–Hamas war
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Legal challenge
 Passed --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Enforcement
 Passed
"On January 16, 2025, a Biden administration official stated that it would forego any decision on whether to enforce the ruling to the incoming second Trump administration, which takes office on January 20." - which took office on January 20? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

done Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 18:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)


### Summary
Well-written:  Passed
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and  Passed
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Passed
Verifiable with no original research:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;  Passed
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);  Passed

it contains no original research; and  Passed
it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.  Passed: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows 62.5% similarity with: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-118hrpt417/pdf/CRPT-118hrpt417.pdf; 59.2% similarity with https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/technology/tiktok-lawsuit-appeal.html; and 55.6% similarity with https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text. I understand that the first and the latter might be in the public domain since they're issued by government bodies.
Broad in its coverage:  Passed
it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and  Passed
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  Passed
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.  Passed
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.  Passed
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:  Passed
media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and  Passed
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Passed
--Governor Sheng (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Alot of the overlap earwig spots is names (name of the bill, District of Columbia Circuit, Chinese Communist Party) or generic terms ("controlled by a foreign adversary", operating in the United States) Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 19:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng: any update on the changes made? Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 05:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. The article meets the GA criteria now. Governor Sheng (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)