Talk:Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV tag

I added this only because I don't know the first thing about this bill, but the tone of this article, especially in the "Disadvantages," is extremely negative. While the bill may be misguided, that's an opinion and we can't have that. There must be a way to clean this up with people who're more familiar. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better if that section were titled "Disputes"? The "upside" that would be the other side of the coin to all of the press this bill has received is "by keeping kids off of social network sites and chat rooms in school and libraries, we'll reduce their risk of online predation". That's reported in the article as the motivation for the bill. The other side of that coin doesn't get its views presented? This bill raises an issue and both sides are speaking on it. It's not wrong to have opinion in an article...it's only wrong to write from that viewpoint rather than report those who are publicly making their viewpoints known. I disagree that this article is not edited from a NPOV.
The NPOV policy states: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." That is exactly what is done by describing the ALA stance and other articles that demonstrate the disadvantages to enacting this piece of legislation. The article does not say "This bill shouldn't be enacted because X, Y, and Z. It says "These groups and people don't think the bill should be enacted because X, Y, and Z". There enlies the neutrality of the article and why it is wrong to claim this to be disputable. ju66l3r 05:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The tone, as it currently stands, is overwhelmingly negative. The entire disputes section is dedicated to opposition to the bill, or to groups that are currently involved in practices that would be affected by it. Also, it's rife with statements like "DOPA would make it more difficult for schools to utilize many of the emerging technologies like blogs and Wikis which are becoming incorporated into the classroom lessons and providing unique opportunities for students to learn, communicate, express themselves and gain literacy skills." That's entirely POV, as it asserts a situation ("DOPA would make it more difficult") and takes positions ("emerging technologies like blogs and wikis", "unique opportunities for students."). The first half of the article is good, but the second most certainly does not show a NPOV, and gives no weight whatsoever to proponents of he bill, instead allowing for a number of unsourced assertions. Instead of excising the section altogether, I figured I'd bring the dispute up first with the folks who understand the bill better than I do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a look for those sorts of statements (doing a diff, they weren't the stuff that I added). It should be clear that the proponents of the bill make their argument by the simple fact that the Act and its pretext exist as given in the opening paragraph: "requiring schools and libraries that receive Universal Service Support to protect minors from online predators in the absence of parental supervision when using 'Commercial Social Networking Websites' and 'Chat Rooms'. The act would prohibit schools and libraries from providing access to these types of websites to minors." The question then becomes "Do we want this because it's good or do we not because it's bad?" and the answer to "Yea" is exactly what the bill states. We must protect kids from these sites when federal money is used and parents are not around. The "Nay" has no statement within the bill (of course). Therefore it needs its own section in the article to define that side of the coin. Doing away with those people's relevant statements on this bill would be No POV and not NPOV. As I said, an article on a document like this is not just a list of statistics on what kind of paper it's printed on. The article deals with the issue that the Act is trying to address and the method in which it attempts to render a solution. That method may have detractors and their statements of fact should be appropriate to the article. It would be overly parsing to POV-tree a topic such as this into "The Bill", "The Opponents of Said Bill", and "The Proponents proposing the Bill" articles. I don't have time this minute, but I'll reword some of the statements made (like the one you quote) that provide context to the comments of bill opponents. ju66l3r 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Badlydrawnjeff. I reread, or rather read, this page for the first time because of your NPOV note. Bravo! I agree! You are correct! Can't believe I missed it! After initial information that seems fair, the final section is a total slant from the ALA point of view, mind you, one that lost 415-10 in the House! So I agree with you and join your effort to see this page reflect encyclopedic information, not ALA-style misinformation. --SafeLibraries 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that you're the pre-eminent authority on misinformation when it comes to the ALA. ju66l3r 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we please stick to the wiki at hand and not personal attacks on me, Ju6613r? I did not raise this NPOV tag. Apparently my agreeing with it, however, has revealed your fangs. Or are you just taking out your frustration over the 415-10 trashing of the ALA agenda by the House on me? Did you accomplish anything? Do you feel better? --SafeLibraries 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It was more of a disregard for your opinion on NPOV matters for this page than an attack. You are choosing to comment on NPOV issues and you can't seem to discuss the actual issue, instead choosing to bring up your hatred of the ALA and to cheerlead for the voting result. I personally have no ties to the ALA, this bill, any of its proponents, or any other dog in this fight. I chose to work on this page because I was looking up more information on the topic the other day and found it lacking when I first got here. Most of the disputed text is not my own and I've accomplished taking quite a bit of the connotation out of it with my latest edit. Maybe you could discuss those edits rather than play footsy on the discussion page over my opinion of you on this topic. It'd certainly help raise that opinion in any case. ju66l3r 05:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Ju6613r. You are really out of line. I came here to respond to badlydrawnjeff as he requested. You attacked. I called you on the attack. And now you claim I'm the one who "can't seem to discuss the issue"? Your previous post was an entire attack on me with absolutely nothing about the wiki page itself, and nothing in the way of a response to badlydrawnjeff. And all I did here was agree with badlydrawnjeff, and for that you attacked me, then again further attacked me by talking about how I should be "disregarded" because of my "hatred of the ALA" and my "cheerleading" of the House vote. Yes, I see you made some useful edits to the main page, but your statements here on this talk page are a total ad hominem attack on me. Your attacks on me only weaken your own positions, not mine. Your repeated attacks on me only expose your own method of argument, not mine. You are only hurting yourself. I suggest you refrain from further ad hominem attack and address yourself to the issue at hand.
By the way, I have no hatred for the ALA. But when the ALA says X for decades, and the US Supreme Court says not X in a 2003 case against the ALA itself, and the ALA advises people to ignore what the US Supreme Court says and continue with X, and children may be continuing to be serious injured as a direct result of the ALA's response to the US Supreme Court, then I think I am perfectly within my rights to bring the ALA's actions or nonactions to the attention of the public. To support my arguments, I am perfectly within my rights to report other actions the ALA takes, such as awarding books with oral sex and porn movies with awards for the top book of the year, especially where the author himself said he would not give his own book to his own twelve year old, but the ALA would. You may not like that I am doing this, and you may find it hard to come up with a reason why it is wrong to bring to the public's attention what the ALA itself is doing, but you cannot argue that I "hate" the ALA because I bring these things to the public's attention.
This came to my attention when my own kid got a sexually inappropriate book from an ALA school librarian using an ALA list of books for kindergartners. So my goal is to advise people of what the ALA is doing before their own kids get stung by the ALA's agenda to sexualize children. There's only so much sludge parent's will take and the ALA can dish out before someone finally stands up and decides children are not to be sexually indoctrinated by the actions of a private, non-profit organization of librarians. Librarians! My kid got that book because of a librarian! Not a perv. Not by accident. Not on MTV. A librarian did this to her, and I am very, very angry that my kid is some guinea pig in an early sexualization experiment conducted by librarians.
Let's be clear. My comments are mainly directed to the leadership of the ALA that creates and enforces these policies, not the thousands of wonderful librarians who truly love children. But I will not stand by and continue to let my child be sexualized over and over again.
To that end I have taken numerous actions unreported by me or others to protect my children and other children from further sexualization by the ALA, and I have been successful every single time I have tried, precisely because it is obvious to the vast majority of people that sexually inappropriate books and materials should not be given to children -- the ALA disagrees but it is so far out of the mainstream.
With the House vote 415-10 for DOPA when the ALA was against it, I see the beginning of the end of the ALA's grip on the children of America regarding the issue of the sexualization of the children. And I will do everything I can to ensure the truth is known about the ALA's actions.
My child is not the ALA's to sexualize. Get your own kids, have some ALA librarian push inappropriate material on them, then see how you feel. This is not an issue of religion, morality, pornography, or anything else other than the ALA's failure to act within the words and spirit of the US Supreme Court, the Legislature, the Executive, and indeed the people's own community standards that usually get steamrolled by the ALA juggernaut -- only to have the de facto head of the ALA publicly laugh at people and governments that try to bring about change because she knows all too well how powerful the ALA is to ensure community libraries remain subservient to ALA agenda despite the law.
So, Ju6613r, you can say whatever you want about me. It rolls right off my back because my arguments are that the US Supreme Court is being skirted and children continue to be harmed by the ALA, in my opinion. The House's massive landslide vote against the ALA's agenda only proves I am on the right track and I am in the vast mainstream who do not want children to have access to sexually inappropriate material, let alone having it placed into their hands like happened to my own child courtesy of the ALA. --SafeLibraries 06:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Ju6613r, your edits do not resolve the NPOV issues. The article still shows only the wonderful aspects of various technologies with nary a mention of the problems caused by, say, MySpace, regarding children. The bias is palpable, now that badlydrawnjeff brought it to my attention, and your edits made little difference on the NPOV issue. --SafeLibraries 06:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well. It's good to see you took time to look down from the soapbox and peruse the article. Maybe you forgot which Talk: page you're on right now. This one is for DOPA. The ALA talk page is elsewhere on the site and I know you are aware of how to find your way there. Your paragraphs of chatter are immaterial to the discussion. Please refrain from confusing the issue by rambling on about such things. Your penchant for tangential diatribe also make it very disinteresting for anyone else from wanting to partake in the discussion.
Now, on the topic at hand, you claim "nary a mention of the problems" are in the article. The article actually says "[the intent is] to protect minors from online predators in the absence of parental supervision when using 'Commercial Social Networking Websites' and 'Chat Rooms'." I think the first half of the article clearly articulates what the bill's purpose is (i.e. the problem of allowing unsupervised children access to these sites in situations where the federal government is partially funding the location) and how it seeks to achieve its goal and what it's current status is with Congress. The second half pertains to how the current bill encompasses more than the intent of its authors. This is not an audit of how MySpace hurts children, therefore adding more info on that is off-topic and does nothing to improve NPOV concerns. The pretext of the bill already assumes that allowing unsupervised access to sites like MySpace is bad, and therefore must be protected against through the enactment of this legislation. Opponents of the legislation are not at odds with that pretext, so it's not relevant to the second half of the article either.
Let's see if someone other than you has a problem with the current text. Or let's see you actually provide something substantial to improve the neutrality of the article. It's not going to be improved without specifics as to where the neutrality is disputed. ju66l3r 07:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You are really mean. All I did was to agree with badlydrawnjeff and look at all the incorrect, nasty things you are saying about me over and over. And you just don't stop. And when I defend myself you claim I'm on a "soapbox" and use "diatribe" and on and on. Then you make silly excuses for why the article should retain its POV nature.
There comes a time when further conversation with a belligerant becomes fruitless. This is one of those times and you are one of those people. I will not respond to your attacks further. Stick to the subject if you want a response from me. Goodbye. --SafeLibraries 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You want to stick to the subject? Prove it. "Silly excuses"? If they are silly, then prove it. "POV nature"? If it still has a POV, prove it. You haven't contributed anything of use (as you said, all you did was to agree with badlydrawnjeff...and he's also had limited input except to claim the neutrality as disputed). Running in here and then playing the victim card is useless, so if that was your final contribution to the discussion, I don't think you'll be missed. See ya. ju66l3r 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. With regard to the NPOV, I've created separate "for" and "against" subsections in the "Controversy" section. Would be nice if someone who supports this bill would fill in some relevant information in the former. I also made some minor edits in the wording of the "against" subsection that will hopefully make it sound a bit more NPOV. --Nleseul 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you've made. When I have time later, I will try to expand the section stub. ju66l3r 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. Great job. --SafeLibraries 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I just stopped by. I'm actually against this bill, but I do have some more information about what the pro side argues, so after dinner (in a couple of hours) I plan to add at least a healthy paragraph to the pro section. Here are some sources that can be used to expand that side: [1] [2] (this last doesn't add that much, but at least provides a direct quote from a Congressman). If we could get an online copy of the record of what all the Congressmen actually said in debate, that would be ideal, but I haven't found it yet. Okay, dinner is on the table, but I'll be back! Jacqui★ 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[ALA] administrators funded by the Playboy Foundation, turn our public libraries into "dirty book stores" to protect their patron's profits. .... In 1998 there were at least 245 nonconsensual child victims, due to reckless libraries documented in the "Dangerous Access" report to congress. .... Despite the fanciful [ALA] hysteria about children's right to "information," most rational Americans want pornography filtered from our libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your talk page contributions by adding ~~~~ after your last sentence. It will put in a signature and timestamp so that others can understand the flow of discussion. Second, this isn't the ALA article and nearly everything you just said is POV or weasel words. Please read up on the policies of this website before contributing. Thanks. ju66l3r 14:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a load of crap

Wasn't America supposed to be about freedom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.230.71 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment is from an unknown user called "209.6.230.71". Is it vandalism? Are there standards for removing things from Talk pages; does that statement meet those standards? --SafeLibraries 03:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So long as the added discussion is not obscene, falsification editing, or otherwise, I have not seen anyone remove additions from a discussion page. It will usually just sit unanswered. In the meantime, if someone posts something on a talk page and does not sign the comment with 4 tildes, then it is customary to use the {{unsigned|username/IP}} template at the end of their comment to help others with readability. ju66l3r 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! --SafeLibraries 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not anonymous, and I think this is a really idiotic and repressive law, one which might even be construed as banning Wikipedia (due to its user pages and talk pages), save for the fact that this site is noncommercial. The congressvermin who voted for it deserve to be defeated in this year's elections (because there unfortunately is no legal grounds to execute all of them by firing squad). *Dan T.* 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First they came for the online pornographers, and I didn't object, because I'm not into that sort of thing. Then they came for the social networking sites, and I didn't object, because I'm antisocial anyway. Then they came for Wikipedia, and I didn't object, because we all know that's a heap of crud anyway... it lets any idiot edit it, after all. Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to object. *Dan T.* 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, this bill would ban access to Wikipedia itself from public libraries. This is bad law, badly formulated by people who do not understand the technology. The sooner this can be defeated, the better. --Lamuella 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should actually be safe from this, since we aren't "commercially operated". Or so I hope. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Bailey is correct - The projects of the Wikimedia Foundation would not be included under DOPA because they are not commercially operated. Wikia, however, would be included, because it's a for-profit enterprise. Having said that, I'm aware of numerous school districts that block Wikipedia, law or not, because they believe it's an inappropriate source of information. I have not seen a reliable survey of how prevalent this is - just emails from educators complaining the site has been blocked. Acarvin 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is why statutory interpretation is a complex task that requires legal education and is so often litigated. You can't just look at the term "commercial social networking website" and apply the every-day, on-line meaning—because the term is defined in the bill for its own purposes, only that definition is relevant for this statute. Here is the DOPA definition:
`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
`(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
`(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
`(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
`(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
`(v) enables communication among users.'.
In other words, whether or not a website is a "social networking website" is determined by a regulatory agency, not by Congress, and despite the term "commercial social networking website," the extent to which the website is "offered by a commercial entity" is only one of five factors that the agency can use, in its discretion, to define such websites. In other words, a wholly noncommercial website offered a by a nonprofit might be considered a CSNW if it scored highly on the other four factors. Or it might not. With respect to Wikipedia, it is not offered by a commercial entity and does not really "elicit highly-personalized information from users," and it is questionable whether or not it permits "on-line journals" re factor (iii) (this seems to be discouraged, but sometimes tolerated), but it would score highly on at least factors (ii) and (v)— Wikipedia permits and encourages communications among users and highly personalized userpages, which can include any personal information the user desires to include.
The bill also does nothing to illuminate whether these five factors are of equal weight or not. The Commission (or Courts, should the statutes be litigated) could decide that factor (i), "commerciality," is extremely important, in fact absolutely necessary for a website to be a CSNW, or it could decide that it is of minimal importance, and only use it as tie-breaker for websites that are absolutely borderline on the other factors, tantamount to ignoring that factor altogether.
So rather than saying that this bill outright excludes Wikipedia, I would say it is an entirely open question. It is possible that this bill would ban Wikipedia as well as MySpace. NTK 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I actually now realize that the above editors were relying on the original definition in the bill as introduced, which is the one currently in the article. In that version the bill actually did try to define CSNWs and chat rooms, seemingly requiring a commercial entity, but shortly before passing it was amended. In the new version, the bill does not actually define the terms, but rather punts to the Commission and allows the much broader criterion I described above. I will update the article to reflect this. NTK 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm from Australia but I'd have to agree. What total garbage. No laws like that would be passed Down Under! 58.163.131.185 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting NPOV tag

I'd like to hear from both sides of this issue as to whether neutrality has been reasonably achieved. I am not suggesting that the article is "complete", but that we can remove the tag to indicate that the neutrality of the article as a whole now is no longer disputed. ju66l3r 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I should apologise, because I've meant to come back and say that the article looks about a million times better than when I added the tags, and I haven't, and now's as good a time as ever. Thanks to those of you who knew details about this, I'm fine with people removing the tag if everyone else is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Remove the tag. Honestly it'll never be perfect, but, as Badlydrawnjeff said, it is much, much better. So, I'm not a wiki expert, if there are no required time periods for the display of the tag, it could be removed.
And I saw someone else was going to add some balancing information. Great. Then the tag has served its purpose. Good call, Badlydrawnjeff for putting it up, and Ju6613r for discussing taking it down. --SafeLibraries 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, good. I'll wait a few days for any further comments people might have on the issue here on the discussion page and then, without any disagreements, I'll probably archive the discussion; as I'm sure the Senate news in the upcoming month will probably warrant a new and fresh round of editing and discussion on this article. ju66l3r 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for future reference, that's an L in my username. :) ju66L3r 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "archive." It doesn't just stay here? --SafeLibraries 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example of an article discussion I archived. It's here, but on a backpage for reference. I archived that page because the article was redrafted to remove copyright violations. ju66l3r 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone just added a Threats to Minors section. It has reintroduced POV, made statements that are pure conjecture at this point, and is generally non encyclopedic. I'd like to see it removed or seriously reworked to remove POV. --SafeLibraries 11:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that today as I've just logged in for the first time. I'll take a look at improving/merging it with other information already in the article if someone doesn't beat me to it first. I also responded on the contributing editor's talk page with suggestions on how to remain neutral in presentation instead of expounding on an argument with soliliquy-style. ju66l3r 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was under the "Arguments in Favor" section, but I have rephrased it in terms of "critics of the bill suggest" with citation of criticism. I do think there is important content in there by citing and documenting the actual statistics of the study, whereas previously the article had quoted someone quoting the study rather than citing and documenting it. John.h.kim 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, and when the USA Today (and other stories) on the matter came out, I hesitated not to change the link to the actual study then (except that I didn't have the URL, etc, just the name). The problem exists in how you presented the information, particularly the self-question-and-answer monologue you wrote which is just a point-of-view editorial technique and not encyclopedic in nature. ju66l3r 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Rephrased again, citing specific representatives and referencing their arguments rather than generic "critics". Hopefully that should satisfy the NPOV issue, and sorry about the earlier phrasing. John.h.kim 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. ju66l3r 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What a pleasure. People disagreeing now agreeing. People actually working together to accomplish something without edit wars and personal flames. Ahhhh. How refreshing. Wish others could learn from this example. --SafeLibraries 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, still NPOV. Cetainly, not enough "pro" material nor links to content and sites who are promoting the legislation to protect children from predators and disinformation posted by predators online on places like Wikipedia.;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs)

New comments go to the bottom of discussion. Indentation is used to determine to what you are responding, not location on the page. Secondly, your assertion that this article is in part written by "predators" looking to spread disinformation is a personal attack and that is not acceptable on this website. Even if the article were still POV ("still NPOV" is what we're striving for), your approach to discussing the issue has dissuaded me from believing you could find a NPOV if it walked up and introduced itself to you. ju66l3r 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --SafeLibraries 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Reference Tag

By the way, the first reference to the text of the bill is broken. Apparently the "ref" tag automatically leaves off the colon at the end of the URL, which is needed by the thomas.loc.gov site. Any ideas how to fix this? I put a link to the bill text under "External Links", but it's still bothersome that the reference link is broken. John.h.kim 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate

Did the Senate approve this bill? 58.163.131.185 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By using the Bill status link to the THOMAS system at the Library of Congress that's included in the article you continue to vandalize, you can see the current status of the bill. At present, it has been referred to a Senate sub-committee. It will have to be agreed upon within the committee before being opened to a vote for approval by the Senate. ju66l3r 15:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So the Bill isn't law yet? 58.163.131.185 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It is a bill in the Senate at this point. If it reaches the point of approval in the Senate, it may even be substantially changed from the version passed by the House (often the Senate is not as quick or radical in passage of a bill as the House is). It would then have to be sent to a committee of House and Senate members to decide on a compromised version between the two passed versions and then the President would have to agree to sign it for it to become law. ju66l3r 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unrelated ALA quote from 2000

The 2000 quote from Judith Krug user Legitimate and Even Compelling insists on including in this entry is demonstrably unrelated to the current (2006-2007) controversy concerning DOPA; there is no evidence that it reflects current ALA policy or that the ALA rep quoted in the entry, Beth Yoke, subscribes to those views. What is telling is Legitimate and Even Compelling's comment on the history page that he believes the quote is needed for balance; it's not balance but NPOV that's important. It reflects Legitimate and Even Compelling's history of using Wikipedia entries to promote his agenda concerning the ALA. Especially suggestive of Legitimate's own bias is his comment on the history page that Krug is the "de facto" leader of ALA (a factually incorrect statement) whose unrelated comments from 2000 somehow trump testimony and interviews given in 2006. Unless the quote can be tied to the present DOPA discussion in a substantive way, it does not belong in this entry.

Ah, I see you have written here. Let's put it this way. You are very young to Wikipedia and need more time under your belt before boldly chopping out the work of others. Your not signing your comment is evidence of your newness.
Listen, everyone here was new at one time or another, and we all try to be nice to the newbies. That includes me. So I'll say this as gently as possible, but your subject matter knowledge is lacking. Worse, you are misrepresenting what is happening here, although I'll assume it's mere newbie exhuberence.
You say, for example, that I insist on including this quote. However you wish to characterize my following wiki policy to improve wiki pages, you failed to mention the contribution of another wikipedian who also challenged the quote but changed it, not the words themselves, to better fit the story. The point being that your characterization of the quote as being solely my work is wrong, thereby casting doubt on the truthfulness of the remainder of your statements. This is a perfect example of why you should take some time to get acclimated to the wiki environment and cast off the IP address and get your own name so you can more quickly shed the newbie feeling of absolute power to mold the world as you see it. It's a newbie thing in general, not a comment specifically directed at you.
It is not "demonstrably unrelated." An argument against DOPA, as presented in the article, is that local policies should prevail. It is encyclopedicly relevant that the organization suggesting local policy should prevail is the very same organization that says ALA policy always trumps local policy. That needs to be included in the article whether you are for or against DOPA or the ALA. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, not to be bent by someone's point of view. Where the article already states local policy should control but that same organization says local policy never controls, that is encyclopedic. Do you now see how that's "demonstrably related"?
You then talk about my history of using wikipedia to promote my agenda. Even though (or perhaps because) you are a newbie, you are apparently adept as using personal attack to argue why my edits should be cut out wherever they exist. Indeed it's likely your newbieness that allows you to feel this way. Well go ahead, you're new at this. I don't mind. We give people like you the time to grow. So please continue to contribute while I continue to do the same.
Proving you are not aware of the facts, you say my claim Krug is the de facto leader of the ALA is false. Krug is indeed the de facto leader, but that is not my opinion. That is the facts, according to the ALA itself. Source: The Krug Contribution; She Convinced ALA to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is, by John N. Berry III, Editor-in-Chief, Library Journal, June 15, 2005. Restating what the ALA itself has already addressed is not bias. Your saying it is only reveals your own bias.
The claim Krug's comments in 2000 are unrelated to DOPA in 2006 is, well, correct! But that's not the issue. The added quote goes to the local control issue, not DOPA 2006 as a whole.
Listen, wikipedia is a fun place to be. Get some more experience and relax and we can all enjoy this together. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote doesn't actually say that ALA policy trumps local policy, though; it only says that, in many cases, when matters are left to local policy, the locals decide that a policy congruent with that advocated by the ALA is the best policy, so that the ALA "wins". It never suggests that the ALA should step in forcefully in some manner to reverse any local policy decisions that happen to go against them. *Dan T.* 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a generous reading of the quote, but not correct. The quote is: "For those of us in this battle, we clearly understand one thing - that when left up to 'local' decision-making, it's still the ALA policy/philosophy of 'no filters' that often triumphs. Local folks are not having their concerns taken seriously. I hear this repeatedly from individuals who contact us asking what they can do because they're up against an ALA wall. Does 'W' (Bush) understand this? His wife is a librarian."
This seems a clear admission that ALA policy "often triumphs" over local policy. And why the reference to "those of us in the battle" if there is no "battle" in the first place, as your generous reading implies. Further, and I think this makes it clear, "Local folks are not having their concerns taken seriously." So I think your reading of this is off the mark. And why the reference to "the ALA wall"?
Further, subsequent history shows the same attitude by the same de facto leader of the ALA, only this time Judith Krug jokes about local governments, saying they "make noises" "from time to time": "We hear from time to time that in response to a situation like what happened in L.A. County, that politicians will be making noises. But there has been very little follow-through on it, mainly because people get upset, and there are things like privacy screens." From "L.A. County Libraries to Install Net Filtering," by Eugene Tong, LA Daily News, 11 Jan 2006. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Legitimate and Even Compelling, you admit: "The claim Krug's comments in 2000 are unrelated to DOPA in 2006 is, well, correct! But that's not the issue. The added quote goes to the local control issue, not DOPA 2006 as a whole." So the quote really has nothing to do with DOPA; it's all about trying to say that ALA is somehow lying or misrepresenting its views on DOPA. That's NOT neutral point of view, that's attempting to insert material in order to editorialize within a Wikipedia entry.
If this was an entry on "local control and ALA" the inclusion of the quote might be justified. It might be justified if this was an entry on "ALA views, Past and Present" or "Quotes by Judith Krug." But your insistance that the public statements of ALA on DOPA be "balanced" by a 7 year old quote that, by your own admission, DOES NOT ADDRESS OR CONSIDER DOPA appears to me to be a reflection of your biased views about ALA. Actually tie this quote substantively to DOPA, or to ALA's or Beth Yoke's current (2006-2007) statements on DOPA, or show that the quote has been currently used or endorsed by ALA to comment on DOPA, and you might have a case for including the quote here. Otherwise, we're all supposed to assume, as you do, that an organization's views can't evolve or change over time or change in relation to a topic or issue. That's a viewpoint, and not a fact.
Your insistance that Krug is the "real leader" of ALA when that statement is factually untrue (see American Library Association showing that Keith Michael Fiels is the Executive Director of ALA) reflects a negative view of ALA that suggests that you ought not be editing entries concerning ALA; you maintain a website attacking and criticizing ALA policy and Judith Krug, after all. That is a fact, not "personal attack." I suggest that the decision be made by a moderator, not someone who campaigns against ALA policy through his website.
I note, as well, that the person who changed the entry to include the quote initially agreed that the quote was irrelevant to DOPA, not well-sourced, and supported removing it. He included it only after you insisted that it was necessary to "balance" the statement.
It is obvious you have not read my comments, have not read the Library Journal article about Judith Krug being the de facto leader of the ALA, have not read my comments about subsequent remarks by the same Judith Krug supporting my original assertions, have not understood the point that it is impossible for a 2000 quote to go to a 2006 law -- but it does go to the assertion of the local control issue being raised in the DOPA 2006 wiki article, and otherwise are grasping for straws on which to support your soapbox. And your statements about the Executive Director and my views in light of the Library Journal article about Judith Krug and the central role she has in the ALA is just misleading. I'm sorry you feel the way you do but wikipedia is about facts, not feelings. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And your statements about the other wikipedian being too stupid to follow wikipedia policy is not appreciated. Nobody here does anything other than follow wiki policy because they are forced into it, as you imply. Is there anyone else you feel like going after personally today? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read it all. Please don't condescend to me. It is a FACT that ALA is lead by a man named Keith Michael Fiels and not Judith Krug; all else is opinion that reflects bias. It is a FACT (admitted by you) that the quote does not address DOPA and does not comment on DOPA. It seems that your sole motive in insisting that the quote be included is to advance your view that ALA somehow is misrepresenting its views on DOPA, for which we have no contemporary evidence. I remain unconvinced that you are not trying to advance an agenda concerning ALA and Judith Krug. This is not an article on local control and ALA policy, or an entry on critiques of ALA policy, or an entry on controversies about ALA policy.
And I did not say the other Wikipedian was "too stupid" to follow Wiki policy: those are your words, sir. I merely observed, based on the entries on the history page, that he appeared to agree that the quote is irrelevant and not well-sourced and initially agreed that it should be excluded before accomodating your views. I am less persuaded by your arguments for inclusion, that is all.
One last thought: in the entry, every other individual's and organization's statements on DOPA are accepted in good faith on their face; why MUST ALA's statements, alone, be "balanced" by a seven-year old quote that does not address DOPA legislation?
Since you are a newbie and still don't get wiki policy, I'll just address this: you said, "It seems that your sole motive in insisting that the quote be included is to advance your view that ALA somehow is misrepresenting its views on DOPA...." No. That has nothing to do with it. "Views" are irrelevant on wiki pages. If I wanted to do what you claim I am doing, I would have much better arguments and I wouldn't do it on a DOPA 2006 page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please cease attacking our anonymous friend. I agree with his or her interpretation that the ALA comments are not directly linked to DOPA. Until you can demonstrate such a connection with verifiable and reliable sources, please discontinue adding them to this article. Until you have such sources documenting the explicit connection, it's original research to link the statement to DOPA.
Finally, please be aware of the Three-revert rule as you on the verge of violating it. Let's work this out here instead of edit warring, please. --ElKevbo 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ElKevbo, glad you are here. The ALA comments are not directly linked to DOPA, that is true. But that's not why they are relevant in the DOPA article. They are relevant because the issue is raised as an ALA argument against DOPA. In the context of an ALA argument against DOPA, it is entirely relevant to raise the issue that the this particular issue raised by the ALA is disingenuous. And proof comes directly from the source, even over the course of time. Think of this like a trial. A prosecutor cannot raise certain issues before the jury. However, if the defendant opens the door to those issues, then the evidence gets to come in. Same here. The quote is irrelevant to DOPA 2006. But the story on DOPA 2006 raises the issue of local control. The door now being opened, the Krug quote goes directly to the issue of local control and can, and should, be included.
I have supplied two Krug quotes going to the issue I raised. It is not original research in the slightest -- I'm not even smart enough to make this stuff up. As to the 3 revert rule, there are a number of IP addresses all removing the same quote, all with little to no experience on wiki policy, and all factually incorrect. Under those circumstances and more, it is not possible for me to violate the 3 revert rule. Besides, for me to "violate" it, since I added the material first, it would necessarily mean they would violate the 3 revert rule first before I could possibly violate it. I'm am willing to work this out here instead of edit warring, indeed that's what I've been suggesting, but the quote stays in until these IP address newbies can comply with wiki policy, and they can take all the time in the world. I was no expert newbie so who am I to judge. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Your behavior is unacceptable. Please cease disparaging editors who choose to remain unregistered; it's their right at Wikipedia and we respect and welcome the contributions of unregistered editors. You have also violated the Three-revert rule and I have reported your violation as edit warring is simply unacceptable.
With respect to the content of your edits: This is an encyclopedia article, not a courtroom. You can not synthesize evidence as that is original research which is clearly prohibited here. Please read that guideline over carefully and I think you'll see where you're going wrong. --ElKevbo 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Because of your claimed report, I will stop. Let's be clear. I made an addition. After some intermediate disagreement, someone else rewrites it. This is the consensus that wiki is all about. Then a serious of newbies with IP addresses either being actual different people or the same person using different computers, removes the rewritten material by the other editor without explanation, initially. I put it back. They do it again and again, and I put it back, each time clearly explaining why it belongs that any unbiased person would at least consider. So I put it back. You then come along and accuse me of attacking these people, and you'll have to show me where because I never did, and you then say I violated a revert rule. I cannot believe reverting vandalism or whatever you want to call these out of policy cuts by newbies of someone else's work could violate any wiki policies. Jimbo Wales himself could not possibly look here and say, well, the vandals cut someone's work repeatedly and this other person kept putting it back, so let's stop this other person from righting the wrongs done by the vandals, or whatever they are. So tell me where I can go to defend myself from your claims. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This is a content dispute, not vandalism. In any case, here is where violations of the Three-revert Rule are reported and, sometimes, disputed. There appears to be a bit of a backlog there at the moment so it looks like you'll have enough time to dispute the alleged violation before an admin gets around to looking at it. I think the diffs are pretty clear and obvious but I leave that for the admins to decide. --ElKevbo 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for unindenting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the removal of this quote. It is not applicable to the DOPA situation. It is undue weight on the section in which ALA comments on DOPA are relevant. On those grounds alone, this quote was inappropriate placed. Secondly, it is a misinterpretation to say that the quote shows that the ALA thinks their policy should trump local policy. The context that I tried to provide (if the quote were to remain in the article) was that this was in response to a letter in which a Bush advisor/defender claimed that Bush wanted "local" controls. The ALA response was that Bush's idea of "local" controls was a farce and that often what the locals really wanted was a policy most closely related to the ALA no-filter policy. But these desires by the locals were often ignored because by the administration's claiming a need for "local" filtering, it was inherent that there be some filtering contrary to the wishes of some localities and the ALA's general stance on the matter. This is why the word local is in single quotes when first used in the quotation, because it refers to the facetiousness with which the word was being used in context to her argument against the Bush administration's desire for local controls as opposed to the future times it is used to actually reference what the local populations want. This is clear if you read the entirety of the sourced article. But, while that's a great intellectual exercise, the quote still remains outside the scope of an article on DOPA 2006. Furthermore, this is not the first time L&EC (previously SafeLibraries.org) has run to the very edge of the 3RR boundary or overstepped it. ju66l3r 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh. You were doing so well until that last sentence. That aside, you are the first editor acting within wiki policy arguing the matter on the merits. Indeed it was your edit I kept restoring when various anons were doing what they were doing. Based on this, I now agree with you. Leave it out.
You see, people, all I was seeking was compliance with wiki policy -- a discussion on the merits, not a personal attack or other irrelevant argument. That's exactly what Ju6613r did.
Getting me blocked because I did not know how to properly handle repeat vandalism was a cute trick. I admire ElKevbo for that. But the forces that be recognized the situation for what it was, so the block was very short term and I have been provided with advice on how to handle this type of gang activity in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)