Talk:SAFE Port Act

I bet the Mafia is happy it passed

Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 (talk • contribs) .

As of right now there are online poker sites still operating, the government may find it difficult to enforce the act you may want to read this Msnbc article, and even if they were able to do so I doubt a serious gambler is going to go to the mob for a game, they will likely find some other way to play online, a home game or they will play at a casino, You may have seen the movie Rounders once too many times (just kidding) but seriously read the article and you’ll see what I mean. :) --Sirex98 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Obama found a way. By, the Mafia, he meant the state politicians who get big big big money from lotteries. SChalice 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people."

I removed the following from the bottom of the article:

It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.

Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? --Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't do "sentiment". That sort of passage is not encyclopedic. 2005 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but if there is a significant group that is against the act, for this reason, I though it might bear mentioning. --Badger151 21:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add that persons engaged in illegal gambling, which was previous possible on the internet due to loopholes in enforcement, are opposed to this act? After all the changes in the law didn't do anything to outlaw gambling. They simply deals with how financial institutions deal with the proceeds of something that was already illegal. Did anyone here actually read the definitions in Sec. 5362(10)? --Holford 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldn't and yes I read them. They specifically outlaw any company that creates software that MAY be used in conjunction with what MIGHT BE CONSIDERED a game of chance with real money. Wouldn't it be nice if the government decided to license, regulate and tax the industry instead of handing it over to Ireland? The GOP actually pushed this bill through under the guise of morality but ensured that State Lotteries and Indian Casinos were given exclusion under these provisions. Does anyone really wonder why America is so fiscally challenged? SChalice 02:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Protectionism

Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)

Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A line or two about Antigua's World Trade Organization ruling would be appropriate, although another ruling is due in a couple months, which would be more relevant since the previous ruling was prior to the Safe Port Act. 2005 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pub.L. 109-347

The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link: Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 109–347 (text) (PDF) starts working, we should revise the article. US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone's fixed it. --Pesco 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Congressional supporters

I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

12/10/2007 - I made sure to add Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411, and Jon Kyl who took over the gambling prohibition torch from his dead father Iowa Congressman Jphn Kyl. Please do not remove mention of these players. They were as instrumental as Leach and Frist in starting the illegal (accordin to the WTO) prohibition of online gambling in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.37.119 (talk • contribs)

Washington Watch

There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.

There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.

I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Doyle's Room should be added

It should be added to the list of online poker sites that don't accept US customers. From March they will allow players to withdraw from their accounts. User Sbpatel.

The SAFE Port Act is about Gambling?

Amazing what is considered teh most important element of this legislation - gambling. Wikipedia is many things, but balanced it probably is not. 130.20.3.179 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're free to add information on other aspects to this legislation, you realize? Hey jude, don't let me down 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's considered "the most important element" because the rest of it is uncontroversial and not any more noteworthy than any other similar legislation. Indeed, that is why the online poker gambling rider was attached in the first place. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to point it out, "uncontroversial" and "not any more noteworthy" is your POV, Furrykef. Remember the Dubai Ports World controversy? Port security, at times, is neither uncontroversial or unnoteworthy. I think it's more that the SAFE Port Act, dealing with just port security, was a "must pass" bill, not any less noteworthy, which is why the rider was attached. But you're right, Hey jude, it's up to each individual to add content. If anyone feels like something should be in an article, they can add it. I suppose the original comment was just a wry social commentary vs. a call to action. --Pesco 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WTO section

The WTO section is gross misstatement of the consequences of the case. The Safe Port Act was not mentioned in the case (it hadn't been passed yet) and the case says nothing specifically about the anti-gambling provisions of the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.182.4 (talk) at 03:49, 18 April 2007

Someone ("2005") keeps reverting my edits

I've added information to the article in the gambling section, citing SPECIFICALLY which poker websites are still accepting U.S. players, but someone keeps reverting my additions, falsely labeling it as "spam." My information was not at all intended to be seen as spam, and upon review, I find it difficult to see how someone could interpret it as such. Anyway, I'm not going to bother checking back every day to re-add information that someone wrongly deletes, so I'll leave that up to someone else who wants to review the information. --Josh1billion 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Using external links inline might look like spam. If you want to add a link to the source of your information I would suggest using a proper reference instead. /213.67.50.84 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The inline link is clear spam, and something that could be found on hundreds of sites, but more to the point the addition is ridiculous. The current text talks about all online gambling companies, differentiating reactions from the public companies to the private ones. The addition weirdly changes the focus to poker and mentions specific companies when there is no need to call one out over another. So besides the spam, the addition clearly is not welcome. This is not a poker article. This is an article about legislation, and to a smaller degree the reaction of the entire online gaming industry, not just one aspect of it. 2005 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The online gambling aspect of the legislation is a very important part of it. Millions of U.S. citizens gamble online, and this legislation has practical implications directly affecting each one of those people. It is perhaps the single most practical effect of the legislation for those millions of citizens. I'll admit that just pasting the link in may seem like spam, but the correct solution is not to omit that information, but to change how it's presented. I will change it into reference format if it makes everyone happy. --Josh1billion 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: It's been changed to a reference. It is fine as is, now. Do not continue to remove the information unless there is good reason to do so. --Josh1billion 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this link. The "good reason" to remove it is this is an encyclopedia, not a game guide, or a place to promote one company over another, or a place to promote one website over hundreds of others with the same data. This article is about the SAFE Port act, not which specific cardrooms allow US play and which don't. the article mentions some do and some don't. Naming three specifically is wildly inappropriate, especially referencing it with a marginal, anonymous source. Please don't add it again. 2005 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, spam = advertisement, and the citation of a webpage is NOT advertisement of the said webpage. Also, your words "anonymous source" indicate that you have not done your homework. The page I cited is a list maintained by FlopTurnRiver.com, which is a known, reputable source for information on poker. It is not an "anonymous source" as you have stated. If you are somehow trying to accuse me of advertising that website, I'll let it be known for the record that I am not affiliated with the site and rarely visit it anymore as it is (personally, I rarely play Poker these days). Anyway, back on topic, you have also subtly made the accusation that the information of which websites have stood up to the legislation would turn the article into a "game guide," which is flat-out ridiculous. Also, you have suggested that listing several poker sites which allow U.S. customers as examples is unfair to the other poker sites which aren't listed as examples; remember that I earlier tried adding the list directly to be fair to all websites, but even then, you protested. --Josh1billion 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea flopturnriver is a reliable source on the Safe Port act is ridiculous. You need to read WP:RS and WP:V. Obviously an anonymous website, even if it is a known poker one, does not meet the criteria here to be cited, especially in the face of far superior citable sources. Addionally, why are you continually adding a poker-centric link? Why not a list of bigo sites taking US players? What about blackjack sites? Your addition makes no sense. Please now stop adding this inappropriate text to the article. 2005 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. After reviewing your talk page, it appears that you have quite a history of removing information from articles without valid cause, which is considered an act of vandalism. Please stop deleting information unless you have valid reasons and information to support your decisions. --Josh1billion 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a little nitpick... according to Wp:vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Just a little pet peeve of mine since people cry vandalism far too often. Crimson30 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my wording. --Josh1billion 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO! settle down girls, stop getting your knickers in a twist!

11th of July

I understand that on the 11th of July 2007 the UIGEA (affecting poker, etc., web sites) became law, having had its 270-odd days since it was "passed" (I don't pretend to understand all the ins-and-outs). I think there should be some mention of this in the article by someone knowledgeable. E.g. on that day pre-paid USA Visa cards that previously worked at online gambling sites were no longer accepted. EdX20 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That date has no special significance. UIGEA has been law since it was signed. Regulations should have been created by now, but the US government almost never publishes regulations in a timely fashion. 2005 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I only just noticed that FullTilt is back to real money. Has there been some new clarification/interpretation of the UIGEA? -Crimson30 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused about something. FullTilt has always been real money. 2005 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Split gambling section to its own article

I consolidated the gambling parts of the article into its own section and added the "Split" template to the article. As noted by the article, the gambling sections of this law at one point had been its own bill. The gambling title of the law has its own short title. The article & talk page are dominated by the gambling aspects of the law, so I feel the gambling sections should be found in its own Wikipedia article that more accurately describe its content. I would leave a header on the remaining SAFE Port Act article with a link to the gambling article, and I would propose this entire talk page become the gambling article talk page. Thoughts? --Pesco 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the split to be a good decision. Currently, we have certain users constantly complaining whenever the gambling section of the article grows to more than a few sentences, but the gambling title of the law has very practical implications which should definitely be examined. It could be argued that the gambling aspects of the law directly affect Americans more than any other aspect of the law. Personally, I'd rather see the article kept as a whole and have more information in the gambling section of the article, but as I mentioned earlier, certain users always complain when that section grows, so I feel that a split would be a good compromise. --Josh1billion 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not unduly long, so what would be a rationale to split it? Giving the legislative history of the Act, splitting it would be deceptive. So, absent any need to split it, splitting it would be inappropriate. 2005 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The rationale to split it is that the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title. WP:NAME says that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." The casual person interested in an article about internet gambling shouldn't be expected to know to read the article about the SAFE Port Act. As far as legislative history, the gambling section had a passed bill in the House of Representatives. Just because for political reasons the U.S. Senate plopped it into another bill doesn't mean Wikipedia has to keep the articles together. As I mentioned above, the gambling section has its own short title in the law, making it quite a distinct section of the law. The gambling sections of this law can officially and accurately be called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which as a Wikipedia article name would give a much better description of the gambling content of the article. The new article can give the legislative history, describing how it was attached to the SAFE Port Act. --Pesco 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you conclude "the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title"? The article is about the Safe Port Act, which has a gambling section. Read what you just quoted above. A general audience would expect text about a law to be in the article about the law, not under a (long) subheading. Just because you have specialized knowledge doesn't mean a general audience does. Then of course the long subheading redirects here anyway, which begs the question again, why would you want to split this text into two places? You can come up with excuses to move a section, but it goes counter to NAME, user-friendliness and an accurate depiction of events (as well as leading to duplicate categorization). It wouldn't be the end of the world to break it in two, but since there are no positives in doing it and several negatives, why do it? 2005 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article were significantly longer, it wouldn't make any sense at all to split this into multiple articles. A more constructive approach would be to lengthen the coverage of the non-internet gambling aspects of the article, if you want to balance it out. Rray 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

3 of the 86 Sections of the SAFE Port Act have to deal with internet gambling. And those three sections have their own short title, "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006". Why not use the actual title of that section for the Wikipedia article about that part of the law? I think this is especially important in this case since the UIGEA was added to another law for political reasons. Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons. I think it's just more in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia to have an article name reflect the overall content of the article. To think of an anology... Let's say an article on the United States had content that was 90% about the state of Nevada. Wouldn't you expect to read great detail about Nevada in the Nevada article? Or should people just demand that others add more content about the other 49 states to equal it out? If the split were to go through, I would definately support leaving some information in the SAFE Port Act about the UIGEA, but with the "See main article" template pointing to the real UIGEA article. I definately plan on making the port security sections of the SAFE Port Act article longer, but I thought the split would be a good place to start. --Pesco 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons." Of course we should. You seem to have a political agenda here. Sorry, but our job is to deal with what is, not "fix" things to what we would poltically prefer. Once again, if there was a space issue that the 83 non-gambling sections not getting the space they deserve, then splitting might make sense, but that isn't an issue, so the piece of legislation should be dealt with in one place. It's more covenient this way; it doesn't make a "fix the political issue" point by separating them; and it doesn't break the many links pointing to this page. There is no reason to break it up, and again several very plain reasons not to, so I'd suggest you forget about you "fix the US government's political maneuvering" idea because you could spend the rest of your life on that. (We can revist this after you expand the port part and we see how long the article is then.) 2005 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You make way too many assumptions, 2005. I have no political agenda. Just because something is more convenient for you doesn't mean it's convenient for everybody else, either. I've stated several very simple reasons to split which you've ignored. I'd suggest you not make assumptions about the motivations of others. I didn't say "fix the US government's political manuevering", so please don't quote it as if I said it. I don't believe you should be asserting control over when issues are revisted, either. With regards to this issue, my only intent was to have article names that accurately reflect the majority of the content of those articles, not to fix a law. I was pointing out that the UGIEA part of the Act was a relatively small addition to an already comprehensive bill on a vastly different subject. --Pesco 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons". That is what YOU wrote, and that is flat wrong. The fact of the matter is the Act was a relatively comprhensive bill with something tacked on, on a vastly different subject. That is what it is, and our articles should reflect that, unless as with all articles, more space is required. 2005 07:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add here that User:2005 seems to be a petty tyrant who has a big WP:OWN problem with this article that is unbecoming to him. -- Konk Republik (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "petty tyrant" is a personal attack. That kind of behavior isn't really allowed here, and it's also not going to help you achieve your goals here. Rray (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the people who are saying that the article should NOT be split in two. The act is ONE act and to break it into two is to imply they are separate acts. If you feel that the poker aspect is unduly weighed, then add to the rest. But the majority of people who are interested in the act are interested in the online gambling aspect... which was the SAFE Port ActBalloonman (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I proposed the split I removed the template since the idea is unpopular here. (The conversation died down in October.) Just as a note, it is one piece of legislation, but it is two acts: "TITLE VIII-- UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT. SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the 'Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006'." Why did Congress give its own short title? Because it's a better description of the gambling-related content of the legislation. When I have time I will try to develop the security-related provisions of the legislation and then hopefully this issue can be revisited. Here's a hypothetical question: What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed? Pesco (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens to this article if the gambling parts of the act are repealed?

To repeat my question from last year, "What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed?" See this article that indicates efforts are underway. Also, the article references the act as the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006", not the SAFE Port Act. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If part of any law is changed, the article can reflect that. In any case it won't be happening anytime soon. 2005 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Table "tabled"

The quote, "...tabled draft UIGEA regulations for public comment," shows a contradiction between US English and British English. "Tabled" in British parliamentary procedure means to bring up for discussion, whereas in US parliamentary procedure it means to (at least temporarily) drop from discussion. Here, in context, one can work it out, but the line really ought to be reworded. --71.174.165.63 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Since this article is about a law in the United States, American English usage and terminology seems appropriate. See WP:ENGVAR. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was that most information from SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions would be moved into Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and that a short paragraph about the UIGEA would remain at SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions but with a link to the main article at Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. OCNative (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The article Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was created by User:Hbaum16 as part of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term. Further details are available on the course page.

User:2005 transformed it into a redirect, arguing WP:CFORK.

It came to my attention when it was returned from the DYK queue to the DYK suggestions page because it had become a redirect.

I have restored the page, but added a merge tag to allow for discussion here. OCNative (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your timeline is not correct. This article was written 4.5 years ago. It has scores of edits, contributed by dozens of editors. There are several URLs/names that redirect here. It is linked to by many, many articles. There was a discussion above where three editors agreed the article should stay here, while one argued it should move. Recently User:Hbaum16 improperly removed the redirect to the existing article, and unfortunately created an obvious content fork. I restored the redirect to the existing article on the subject. OCNative, please revert your edit again creating a duplicate, as it unhelpful and only creates further confusion and waste. If students want to contribute to the Wikipedia, they need to do it in appropriate way, and edit the existing article, not make duplicates on one or more different URLs that have to be cleaned up after them. If on this discussion page a preponderance of editors now or later want to move part of this article to a different URL, fine, but this is the Wikipedia article on the UIGEA, and any improvements/changes can only start here, and not somewhere unrelated. This both follows Wiki guidelines, and common courtesy. 2005 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

My timeline refers strictly to the article on Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, not to the SAFE Port Act article. Furthermore, I have not been "unhelpful" nor creating "further confusion and waste" because I am opening a discussion on the topic. The "discussion above where three editors agreed the article should stay here, while one argued it should move" occurred 3.5 years ago. User:Hbaum16 took a redirect and wrote the article that you state is a content fork. You reverted it back into a redirect it to SAFE Port Act. User:Jaobar and User:Xeno reverted your redirection. Those three users clearly disagree with your contention that it is a content fork, so I am opening a discussion here to allow a proper examination of the issues you and they have raised in order to prevent an edit war. A full discussion must be had here. OCNative (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the redirect. I'm the professor in the class that's involved with the UIGEA article, we started it from scratch. I have spoken with Sage Ross, the initiative's coordinator, and we have agreed that it will most likely be a redirect at some point; however, for the purpose of the current assignment, and because the students have worked hard enough to earn the DYK award, it seems only fair to allow the article to remain as is until the semester is over (3 weeks). I'd appreciate your understanding and patience in this regard. Many thanks. Jaobar (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not fair. A couple dozen editors have made hundreds of edits to the UIGEA article, and since it obviously is controversial, those edits have sometimes been contentious. Please have your students move their edits to the original article, and please especially in the future be sure your students to not remove redirects to make duplicate articles. The Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a place where multiple articles are written on the same subject. If there is no article on something notable, create a new article, wonderful. But if there is an existing article, as was plainly obvious in this case by the redirect, then contribute with editing the existing article. It's both the rules, common sense and common courtesy. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, any DYK attention is appropriate only for the original article, not a duplicate that ignores the hard work of many editors to make a fair and useful article for the public. Again, if your students want to contribute to that, they should make edits to the original article. 2005 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OCNative, please read above as your timeline is wrong. The URL of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was initially a redirect which User:Hbaum16 inapproriately removed to make a duplicate article. There are a half dozen other URLs redirecting to the original, 4.5 year old article on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The discussion 3.5 years ago can of course be reopened, and I really couldn't care less if the content is moved to a different URL. But it is that content that must be moved. It is both against the guidelines and extraordinarily rude to ignore the work and contributions of dozens of editors, making hundreds of edits, over a period of years. It is an obvious content fork to have two articles on the exact same thing. The students are free to contribute to the existing article. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

2005, My timeline is not wrong. I have explicitly said that there was a redirect. I explicitly said, "User:Hbaum16 took a redirect and wrote the article that you state is a content fork. You reverted it back into a redirect it to SAFE Port Act." I have bolded the relevant portion of my statement. Could you please stop quibbling with my timeline and deal with the issue at hand?

You have grown so attached to WP:CFORK that you have disregarded both WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Furthermore, I have read the information on both the original SAFE Port Act and the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Yes, they cover the same law—but they do not cover the same content. SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions covers the legislative history in Congress, the regulatory history in the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department, responses from online sites, Antigua's WTO dispute, and Congressman Frank's efforts to overturn/change the law. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 covers the legislative history in Congress, the regulatory history in the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department, description of the act's provisions, and enforcement actions pursuant to the act. It is clear that some of the information is duplicated, but there are clearly substantial portions of new information included. Therefore, these are NOT the "exact same thing". It is both against the guidelines and extraordinarily rude to ignore the work and contributions of new editors to simply wipe out their contributions with a redirect; appropriate action would have been to take the new information and WP:MERGE it into the old article or take the old information and WP:MERGE it into the new article. This follows Wiki guidelines, common sense, and common courtesy. OCNative (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't dwell on this drama stuff, but you do need to scroll up to read what you actually said. You incorrectly wrote: "The article... was created by User:Hbaum16 as part of an educational assignment... User:2005 transformed it into a redirect, arguing WP:CFORK." That is wrong. If you would have looked at the history, you would have seen there was redirect created by User:Markles on October 26, 2006. This month User:Hbaum16 took the redirect off and created a duplicate-topic article. Only then did I revert to the longstanding redirect. Please be more careful next time, as your characterization of events only further confused the issue. 2005 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a matter of interpretation of my words. My wording would have been clearer to you had I written, "User:2005 transformed it back into a redirect..." You kept referring to the age of the SAFE Port Act article, rather than the UIGEA page/redirect/article, which was not part of the timeline I described. Further, my timeline "further confused the issue" for only you, as no one else seemed to be confused at all about it. OCNative (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

2005, while I can see that you are certainly passionate about this topic, and committed to ensuring that the work of the dozens of editors you speak of be recognized, I would again ask that you back off of this issue for a few weeks to allow the students to finish their work. I am not an expert Wikipedian, and do not understand how my students could have created a duplicate article in the way you describe, unless there used to be a UIGEA article which was then combined with the Safe Port article. Either way, at the time the students started the assignment, there wasn't an unique article addressing that particular topic, so we created the article from scratch. You are free to continue editing the UIGEA section on the Safe Port site (which I guess is the result of this previous article you mentioned), and we will work with our new article. I don't see how adding information to Wikipedia takes away anything from anyone, the Safe Port Act is not THE source for information, and neither is our article. I will again ask that you please leave the article as is, and let the students continue their work.

If I may also say, I often hear passionate Wikipedians such as yourself arguing for adherence to specific rules like "content forks" and the like. One rule that for some reason seems to get lost in many of these discussions, which I happen to think is probably a more important one if we want Wikipedia to survive, is the rule to not bite the newbies (WP:BITE), which you are clearly doing here. Let the students have their project for a few weeks. Jaobar (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that OCNative agrees with me regarding WP:BITE. Jaobar (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like everyone agrees that ultimately, there ought to be only one article on this topic. So the best route would probably be to have the students start merging the new content they've created into this article, and continue their work here. I agree with OCNative and Jaobar (and Xeno, elsewhere) that simply redirecting the new version of UIGEA was not appropriate... instead, it should have been discussed first, and merged prior to any redirecting. But if it's ultimately going to be merged, then it will not benefit anyone continue developing a fork; that just adds to the challenge of efficiently merged the two versions later. (Unfortunately, that's likely to make the DYK impossible, but that will probably be the case either way now that we've identified the overlap with this article.) This is, of course, just my opinion. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1) There are about two weeks left before the final assignment is due, so I'm not going to have the students start changing their assignment, just wouldn't be fair, 2) it does appear that there are elements that do not overlap in the two articles, and 3) the DYK is also kind of a big deal for the students. I say that we should leave as is, at least for now. Let's wait and see what the students add... maybe the articles will be very different by the end. Jaobar (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This would have all been solved easily if you would have simply edited in the right place after being pointed to it a second time. What is "fair" to your students is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a school project. You need to use the Wikipedia in a responsible cooperative way, not as your own sandbox. As mentioned previously and right above, the soloution, and common courtesy, call for your students to add their contributions to the existing article, to make it the best it can be. It makes no sense at all for your students to work anymore on the other article for "two weeks" and then just leave it, expecting other editors to then merge the content of your students into the other article. Likewise it is bad to cause a process issue here for a couple weeks, then just abandon the duplicate article which is then redirected as before. Your correct path is clear: have your students contribute like good Wikicitizens to improve the existing article, and put the redirect back on. 2005 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that the DYK cannot occur, unless the new article can be 5x expanded:

• If the consensus is to merge into UIGEA, the article must be expanded to 29,265 characters, as SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions is 5,853 characters. Rule A5 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules states, "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article."
• If the consensus is to merge into SAFE Port Act, the article must be expanded to 35,710 characters, as SAFE Port Act is 7,142 characters.

By my review, currently 2005 is pushing for a merge into SAFE Port Act (though only after being pushed to admit that there was new content at UIGEA). Sage Ross supports a merge and leans toward doing so at SAFE Port Act. I support a merge but have not yet weighed in on where. Jaobar opposes a merge. There is not yet a consensus as to where to merge though the consensus does seem to be toward a merge. Perhaps, other editors can weigh in. OCNative (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. 2005, could you use a less condescending tone? Your tone is not helpful in the discussion and simply inflames the issue. OCNative (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please cut it out with your tone and inaccurate remarks. I was not "pushed" to admit anything. Please don't again the confuse the issues. The content on the dupe article just needs to be added to the existing article. There is no reason for drama beyond that point. Since you now agree, fine. 2005 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The end result is the text from the SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions has been added to Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. OCNative (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The students will be completing their assignment by finishing their contribution to the UIGEA. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do with the two articles. If the students choose to participate in a merger, that will be their independent decision, I will not require that this additional assignment be completed for class. I will not be responding in detail to 2005's personal attack. Instead I will just say that I am not impressed, and that I doubt that this behavior and disregard for the pedagogical techniques employed by the USGovI will help attract students to Wikipedia - quite the opposite I'm sure. Jaobar (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You say it as if it's a bad thing. We don't need uncooperative professors coming on here saying things like "the assignment is nearly due, so I'm not going to follow Wikipedia policy". Anything we can do to discourage such "projects" is a very good thing. Gigs (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OCNative, I don't necessarily think this is the location where the topic should be covered. Spinning it out to a separate article and merge from here might make better sense; I have no opinion about that. But it seems pretty clear that the current situation is a content fork, and the sooner we remedy that the better. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not quite a content fork, more of an incomplete article split (Wikipedia:Content fork#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles). –xeno^talk 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I used "fork" too loosely there.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge- To me, it makes more sense to have two articles, because the UIGEA portions overwhelm the article, which is on the parent SAFE Port act. Having a child article on the UIGEA means that the Internet gambling bits can be expanded without worrying about UNDUE. Or put simply: it makes as much sense including all the information about Internet gambling here as it did shoehorning the UIGEA into this law in the first place. The split should be completed by moving most of the UIGEA information to the child article with appropriate attribution, leaving a short summary here in the parent with a 'main article' link. –xeno^talk 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is what I meant, if editors decide that UIGEA is a better place for the main coverage than SAFE Port Act. Again, I'm not partial to one or the other.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The issue is merging the two articles, which it appears you do agree on. What URL the content is on is not as important, nor controversial. Previously there was a discussion that lead to it being on this URL, in part because people with political agendas on both sides want to make political points with the article -- including either hiding or overly highlighting the connection to the rest of the Safe Port Act, and the process by which the bill was passed. Whatever though, this Internet stuff just needs to be in one location... and WP:CFORK explains that the existing article should be the base content of the move, with the new content integrated into it. Given that, the new content should be integrated here. If after merging the content, the text is then moved to the other URL, fine. (I would say the greater edit history makes here a better choice, but I don't really care if it is moved to the other URL.) If none of the students wants to merge the content, I'll do it, though it might be better if someone else does. And then after the content is merged and the length calls for a child article to be created instead, fine. Unfortunately based on the above, it seems the students are "done" with all this, so I'll move the content in a couple days if someone doesn't do it before then. 2005 (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge That UIGEA was passed as part of the Safe Port Act is mostly historical accident; UIGEA was passed as a stand alone bill by the House in 2005, IIRC. It's clearly just a rider that has nothing to do with protecting Americans from coastal terrorism. AFIAK, it's the only part of the Port Act that's got a whole lobby dedicated to its repeal (i.e. the Poker Players Alliance), and it might even be the only part of the Port Act that anyone has been indicted for (e.g. Daniel Tzvetkoff and Isai Scheinberg. It seems wholly notable in its own right. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • See above. Where the content is is not the central issue. The content just needs to be in one place. As for the "historical accident" part, that assertion is your take on the issie, and is why up till now the article is where it is. Your opinion about whether it was an accident or not is not encyclopedic. The UIGEA aspect is obviously notable, but a large part of its notability is in how it has been passed. Some contributors to this article in the past have wanted, for their own political reasons, to either highlight or not highlight the Safe Port association. It's not our business to do either, but rather just state the facts. In any case, the issue of whether to move the wikipedia article on the UIGEA from here to the other URL is different than the technical point that there should not be two different articles on the UIGEA. If after the newer content is merged into the older article here, the merged content is then moved to the other URL, fine, and from your comment it appears you would agree with that. 2005 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In line with the gist of comments above, in the next 36 hours or so I will merge the content from the new/dupe article into the existing article here. When that is completed I will move the UIGEA content from here to that other URL (and update redirects). This will then leave a more complete edit history here, but also have the content end up on the new URL, which seems to now be a preference of most editors who commented, and more likely to prevent this type of duplication in the future. No doubt many existing links in articles do only go to SAFE Port Act, but of course I'll leave a prominent link to the new location here so nobody should get lost. 2005 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I oppose the merge of this article for several reasons. It is not a content fork. It is an article which is notable in its own right. The content of the student's article is not copied from the safe port article, it is entirely original. The attributions are in tact. It is not at all uncommon to write an article which had theretofore been a redirect. And it is equally common for an act within an act to have a separate article. This was an overzealous effort to enforce policy to an unintended consequence. The only valid option is AfD if you dare to seek such redress. I am confident the article will emerge intact. To the extent this action caused an approved new article to be removed from the DYK queue, I hope to gain a reprieve in this regard. My76Strat (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that just this week, while this discussion has taken place the US FBI has shut down the largest online poker sites citing UIGEA, not the safe port act. My76Strat (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you are saying is "interesting". The Wikipedia has had an article on the UIGEA for 4.5 years. This is that article. There are two parts of the Safe Port act, and thus this article has two parts. A child article can be spun off from the second half of this article, and the student's contributions added to that. Till then though, this is the article on the UIGEA, with 100 wikilinks added over the years pointing at it. It's important that we don't have two articles on the same subject, as the content fork explains. Even more, we don't want three or four or ten different articles resulting from 10 different school assignments on the wide variety of URLs that redirect to this article. Clearly this project was done opposite of how we want contributions from classes. We want students to add to existing articles, or create new articles where we don't cover something. We don't want two articles or article sections on the exact same subject. 2005 (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've now moved the UIGEA content that was here to the new URL. Almost all the content of both articles is now included at the new URL. Only a few redundant sentences that said the same thing were not included. I'll now update the main redirects to make them all go to the new location. 2005 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous

This conversation is getting absolutely ridiculous. Who on earth would ever want to search through a long description of the Safe Port Act to find information about gambling regulations? What end does this serve? What is Wikipedia for? Direct access to information or time-wasting? Just because the two regulations are linked historically, doesn't mean that the content of one has anything to do with the other. Those who are interested in gambling should have their page, those in Port Safety, theirs.
The situation addressed here is not unique at all, and in other situations I have encountered, the answer is clear... have two articles.
Need a great example? Here's one: the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a variety of different Titles that address different issues. Title V is referred to as the Communications Decency Act. As noted on Wikipedia "the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet." In this situation, the CDA addresses issues that are similar or at least related to the many addressed by the Telecommunications Act, and yet, there is a Wikipedia article on the 1996 Act and another on the CDA. Why? Because people doing research want to get directly to their information sources without having to wade through irrelevance.
Why is the procedure that linked these two issues the focus of this discussion and not the content? Are we forgetting about the potential consumers of this content? Those who want information on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 go to the one article, those who want info on the CDA go to the other article. The same should happen here - those interested in Port Safety regulation go to one, those interested in the history of online gambling regulation go to another. Yes, both should note that historically the two are connected. But frankly, what percentage will care about the procedure???
I'll say again that I am quite put-off by the disregard for the newbies. I am also quite disappointed the the DYK award was apparently taken off the table as a result of this discussion. I would encourage those who are familiar with the DYK process to please re-nominate this group and give them their fair shake. If nobody does this, I will nominate the group myself when I find some time after the exam.
I'm just going to put this out there ... if 2005 makes an attempt to remove the article before the students complete their assignment (even though many - contrary to what 2005 says - have opposed the merger... read the history), I will revert all changes and I guess we'll be in an edit war. That's fine with me... unless you can convince me that the CDA and the 1996 Act should be merged as well. Jaobar (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that once the students finish their project I'll back off. I'm only doing this to enable the students to follow-through on their project and help fulfill part of the mandate of the USGovI, which strives to connect students to the Wikipedia community.Jaobar (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, the realities of your students isn't really a factor here and constantly bringing into the discussion the assignment actually an incentive to say "Merge now and discuss separating later." That being said, I have no problem with having separate articles. Having the poker section in this article has never felt right to me. It should be a small section of the safe port act because it is just a small part of the bill. The fact that that one section has become a major focal point of the article and legislative actions speaks to the need to have a separate article. So I oppose merge, but please stop appealing to what your students need, it is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs---and is the opposite approach to what we need. We appreciate having colleges/universities come in an help out with improving the encyclopedia, but when you are coming to WP, you are doing so within the frame work of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Wikipedia guidelines/policies dictate what is acceptable/fair, not class schedules/assignments. Again, if you focus your arguments on what is best for Wikipedia (and not your students) you will get a better response.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly your attitude summarizes the problem. You need to care about the dozens editors who have contributed to this article. Asserting your students can make any articles they want on topics already covered is kind of astonishing. You need to understand this is not your class. This is an encyclopedia where particpation of your class is both as guests and something that requires you to respect the work of others, work that took place over a period of years. Please do not make a Gambling online article, instead contribute to the existing online gambling article. Do not make a Games played with cards article, instead contribute to the Card games article. And if you have a suggestion for a better URL for an article to be on, or if you have a suggestion for breaking out a portion of an article into a new child article, make such suggestions on the talk page of the articles, or even move the existing content and then start to work. Do not just ignore the work of others, and the existing articles. 2005 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Professor Obar, I have to say that commenting that you will be willing to edit war is unhelpful, bordering on disruptive. I apologise I haven't been around as this developed, I've been busy this easter weekend. Looking at the current situation, 2005, has merged the information from the safe port article into the UIGEA article, and it looks good to me. The information is correct there, and almost all information has been retained. As for DYK, unfortunately the article is ineligible, I've worked in DYK a fair amount and can confirm this, as OCNative pointed out, one of the rules of DYK is that if information was expanded from another article, it must be expanded 5-fold. I am sorry that this may be a disappointment to the students. As for behavioural issues, 2005 may well have been exhibitting WP:BITEyness, but you were exhibiting WP:OWNership - remember that all contributions have been released under licenses to be edited as the community sees fit. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jaobar, DYK is not an award. It is a way to feature new content. That's all it is. It showcases brand new articles of new content or old articles with substantial new content (substantial meaning 5 times the size of the old content). Also, WP:EDITWAR is one of the stricter policies on Wikipedia. Users are blocked for edit warring, as it disrupts and weakens the Wikipedia article that is the subject of the war. OCNative (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Recapping the merger discussion

Since I opened this merger discussion, I will attempt to recap it now that it seems to have concluded.

Obviously, User:2005 and I had a very lengthy discussion on this topic last week. However, I am in agreement with what User:2005 did this week (after everybody took Saturday away from this discussion), as what User:2005 clearly reflects the consensus here. (For the record, what User:2005 did was take the information from SAFE Port Act#Internet gambling provisions and merged it into Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006; for purposes of this sentence, merge means took the information from SAFE and put it in UIGEA.) I recognize that several people wrote "oppose merge" in their comment, but their comments clearly described that they simply opposed returning the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 page into a redirect. Consequently, I believe there is confusion over the definition of "merge" so I will not use that word in this recap.

I will attempt to recap what each person supported based on their most recent comment (not necessarily their comments from the beginning of the discussion), which will explain why I believe User:2005 acted in accordance with the community consensus; again, I am not using the word "merge" since people seem to be using different definitions of the word:

• Taking the SAFE Internet gambling provisions information and putting it in the UIGEA page.
  • Xeno
  • Balloonman
  • Worm
• Combining the Internet gambling information from the two pages and putting it in one page, regardless of which page it is.
  • 2005
  • OCNative
  • SageRoss
• Keep separate articles.
  • My76Strat
  • Jaobar Jaobar (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope I've summarized everyone's positions correctly. If not, please comment below. OCNative (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the summary, and the individual redirect updating. 2005 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, if this is saying that we need one article under the UIGEA, then no that is not what I'm saying and I don't think it is what the others are saying. I do believe that there is enough information that UIGEA should be broken out into a separate article, otherwise we are dealing with undue weight on one section of the bill. The SAFE Port Act should have its own article and the UIGEA article COULD have its own article.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, my second paragraph above indicated that "SAFE information" refers to the Internet gambling provisions from the SAFE Port Act. To make this clearer, I have added the words "Internet gambling provisions" to the heading above. I assume this does accurately describe your position. OCNative (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The SAFE Port Act has to include information related to the UIGEA or else it is incomplete, but the section should be a summary with the main article link. If that is the proposal, then I can support the summary.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly that. In fact, that is what the page looks like after User:2005 acted on the page. OCNative (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not identified my position correctly. I would like there to be separate articles. I have moved my name. Jaobar (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of the clarification I made to Balloonman, is your position in the correct place? OCNative (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of the clarifications, I'm not sure why you have broken the section into two parts? Scenario 1 and Scenario 3, as far as I can tell, are essentially the same thing. With my caveat, that the Safe Port act needs a short section on gambling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Scenario 3 is basically the leave the information alone option, where the UIGEA article exists as a separate page while the SAFE Port Act still has a lengthy section about the UIGEA. OCNative (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That IMO is not a viable option, the main argument to create two articles is that the gambling provision/section provides undue wieght to one section of the bill and dwarfs the others. How about rearranging the sections: Actually, I don't think there is enough in many of the above comments to determine that certain users want to keep the Safe Port Act untouched, and doing so would be counter to the purpose of breaking them out. SO:

1) Two articles:

• Xeno
• Balloonman
• Worm
• Kendrick7
• My76Strat
• Jaobar

2) Combining the Internet gambling information from the two pages and putting it in one page, regardless of which page it is.

• 2005
• OCNative
• SageRoss

Re-organize sections to clarify OC's intent---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm not sure if Sage's position is accurate there. It is based upon one comment where he states what he reads to be the consensus at that time. In another place, he writes that he doesn't have an opinion on the subject. I think he's trying to play more the mediator role and interpretting what he sees than actually provide specific opinion/guidance here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, either I don't understand what you are saying, or you have not read the current versions of the two articles: SAFE Port Act and Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. As far as I can tell, no one has a problem with what exists right now (not counting tweaking some words of course). Please take a look at the current structure of the two articles, and if you think something needs to be done, please state what you think that is. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what's all the hubbub... if you're fine with the two versions the only person who appears to want one article is OCNative.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, OCNative is fine with how things are now. (Though of course s/he can speak to that.) As for why there is hubub, it's the Wikipedia.... :) 2005 (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the entire above summary is not needed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:2005 is correct in interpreting my position (I did say, "I am in agreement with what User:2005 did..." in the beginning of the recap). In my original summary, Scenario 1 is what User:2005 did. Scenario 2 was a dual option that gave support for one of two options: 1) what User:2005 did or 2) for moving all the UIGEA info into SAFE Port Act. Scenario 3 is what Balloonman called "not a viable option," as my interpretation of the comments is that those two users actually did prefer that option, but their comments lead me to believe they can also live with what has now been done. (Indeed, at the very, very beginning of this discussion, there were more users supporting Scenario 3, but through the deliberative process in this discussion, support fell away from Scenario 3.) My summary was an attempt to explain why I believe User:2005 acted in accordance with the consensus. OCNative (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proof that consensusology works...I think all are happy now ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining consideration is DYK. The original nomination was in good faith and frankly, I didn't anticipate this discussion. Nevertheless it has resolved satisfactorily as I perceive, less the one reservation. I personally thank OCNative for being a voice of reason in this discussion and actually representing nearly all concerns I would otherwise have had, even while I was physically away for 1 week. Because you stated that DYK activity was what first brought this matter to your attention, I hope, and ask, if you can assist at gaining a reprieve in this regard. I think the article, having been approved, deserves the boost it was initiated to receive.

In any regard, to my observation, it reinforces that these students, new contributors, produced a fine example of Wikipedia content that not only withstood contention, but apparently resolved a long standing content dispute. Personally, I feel the notability existed years ago, and am surprised the article was reduced to a redirect all this time. I say that as a member of the PPA, and someone who has been directly affected by this notable act. This is why my initial communication with these students, stated; "This is a subject which aligns with my personal interests". My76Strat (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fully satisfied with the resolution of this discussion. Especially because most of the important facets were addressed and accomplished without my involvement. It is a positive example of how things can get done through consensus. My76Strat (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Response

First of all, my apologies for the "edit war" comment. My intention was to try and protect the students, primarily to ensure that their experience with this project was a positive one, and so that they would be able to learn that which the initiative strives to have them learn.
In response to the other comments:

• Balloonman: "stop appealing to what your students need, it is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs---and is the opposite approach to what we need"

The Wikimedia Foundation approached our class along with more than 30 other classes to participate in this initiative. As "teaching fellows" we have been trained to add this "Wikipedia in the classroom" project on top of our already existing courses. Any project that involves both a university institution and another will involve compromise, as both institutions have rules and goals. Thus the project is not just WP, but rather MSU+WP or WP+MSU, so the rules and goals of both must be respected. I understand that having the students understand the culture of WP is important, and have done my best to teach them the rules of the road in a short period of time. That being said, the class also has its own requirements, and I assumed that the community would be sensitive to the newbies trying to connect. I assumed this is why all of the articles the classes are contributing to have been flagged. Bottom line, if you have a problem with this initiative, I encourage you to take your concerns up with those who are running it - i.e. the Wikimedia Foundation.

• 2005: "this is not your class"
• 2005: "This is an encyclopedia where particpation of your class is both as guests and something that requires you to respect the work of others"

I have never stopped others from editing the article. I am also not the only one asserting that the articles should be separate. In fact the majority seem to share this view.

• 2005: "Please do not make a Gambling online article, instead contribute to the existing online gambling article. Do not make a Games played with cards article, instead contribute to the Card games article."

Clearly you either disagree with my previous comments or misunderstand what I have said. My view is that the Safe Port Act and the UIGEA have very little to do with one another and thus should be separate articles, just as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the CDA are separate articles. The UIGEA in no way was a duplicate of the Safe Port Act article. Clearly we disagree here, but I don't understand how an article about an act about ports is the same as an article about online gambling. The only connection (repeating myself now), is that they share a procedural connection - there appears to be no content connection. So if the basis for their combination is procedural, clearly you are arguing that people will search for information based upon their interest in government procedures, not gambling or ports. I believe that the latter (the content) will be what people will search for and thus the articles should be separate. I hope my point of view is clear.

• Worm That Turned: "I have to say that commenting that you will be willing to edit war is unhelpful, bordering on disruptive."

I apologize again for the edit war comment. As I said earlier, my intention has only been to protect the students and ensure that they can complete their project properly as the Wikimedia Foundation has asked. I am also learning...

• Worm That Turned: "you were exhibiting WP:OWNership - remember that all contributions have been released under licenses to be edited as the community sees fit."

As noted in a subsequent post (though the count is actually incorrect as I don't believe anybody supports only having a UIGEA article only), it appears that the majority favor separate articles. So the decision to keep the UIGEA is not only my opinion. Had the majority of those voicing an opinion suggested otherwise, then I would (and still) be more open to a merge. Though I would have still asked that the merge wait until the students were able to complete their assignment. A point which we could debate on its own.

• OCNative: "DYK is not an award. It is a way to feature new content. That's all it is."

That's your perspective. To my students (who are newbies) the DYK feature is an award, and a very big deal considering that they are "competing" with graduate students for similar mentions. Again, it seems that a number of you are having trouble seeing this initiative from the student's perspective. For those of you who will be quick to respond to this comment with "who cares about that," I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the WMF Public Policy Initiative.
I'll just close now by saying that my intentions have never been to make a "power grab" or to shake things up. I have been put in charge of a large class of students who have never edited Wikipedia before. Yes I want them to learn about Wikipedia's subculture, and trust me, they have learned a lot - especially from debates such as this. I would also ask you to keep in mind that I also have to run a class, and while you may not care about that, this class is being run in collaboration with the WMF, who has tried to ask for your understanding and flexibility by the posts at the top of the project articles. My intentions have always been to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in collaboration with the WP community, while at the same time, help to connect the students to WP in accordance with the goals and guidelines of the WMF Public Policy Initiative. Jaobar (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

JA, my point is basically, that when it comes down to it, the subculture here at WP is what is going to govern how/what goes on here. I am not deaf to your situation, in fact, I support having separate articles. But the reality is that debates to keep/delete articles, to modify policy/procedure, or to do whatever are better framed within the policies/guidelines/culture of WP. You may have class expectations, but WP cannot conform to the dictates of every professor/class/university---that is against the consensusology culture upon which WP was built. We cannot allow every professor/class/university to ride roughshot over wikipedia. There are certain guidelines/policies/practices that have to exist. (Just as we cannot allow individual wikiprojects to always get their way.) When you appeal to what is fair for your class, that falls on deaf ears, we frankly don't care. Ok, we do care, but in the end, what you perceive as "fair" for your class doesn't make it right for WP and might end up turning people against your case. Again, I say this as a person who is not deaf to your situation---and I suspect that next time you encounter this situation, that you will be more adept at arguing it within the wp context. I can't speak for other long term editors, but I know that my first major experience here involved a similar fight over an article I cared about. I had rewritten it, it was taken to CSD then to AFD, and most of the arguments I used to defend it were "wrong" but I learned from it. I hope you take this experience at WP and learn from it as well... and hopefully go on to bring us a lot of quality editors. But the nature of WP is that it is a consensusology, and the culture at WP is not controlled by the WMF.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Since resolution of this debate doesn't appear to be pending, I have verified the Internet Gambling Act article for promotion at DYK. It seems to me there is at least a viable argument for the existence of a standalone article on this amendment, if consensus goes the other way that is fine by me, but DYK has a limited window of opportunity and we shouldn't be unfairly penalizing a group of new contributors in the meantime. My only request is that the current standalone article not be merged with this article until after the former has been featured. After that you can do what you like as far as I'm concerned. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope to see this new article featured on DYK as previously scheduled. It would be a shame to loose the momentum this effort was attaining. And my admiration of the article extends beyond its feature, into the other possibilities that rest now with the collaboration. GA status is not without possibility. My76Strat (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Version as of April 28, 2011

For the most part, I support the current version of things: A SAFE Port Act article with a brief mention of gambling content, and a comprehensive Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 article. I think a line or two of UIGEA content could still be removed from the SAFE Port Act article, but I would like to receive others' feedback on that. Have the major issues been settled now? ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely oppose removal of the UIGEA from the Safe Port act. It is the main reason most people are familiar with the bill or will look it up. It is a major component of the bill, and the article would be incomplete without at least a paragraph about. That being said, the main article on the UIGEA should be elsewhere.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There are five sentences about UIGEA in the SAFE Port Act article. I'm talking about reducing that to two or three. Basically down to the Main article link, and then "here's what UIGEA is, and this is why it has a connection to the SAFE Port Act."~Pesco^{So say•we all} 01:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think it needs its own section, but that being said, make the changes that you think should be made... be bold, if we don't like it, we'll revert it ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just summarize here per WP:CFORK/WP:SS -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Every time I visit the article, it is in better condition than the previous time. I can't see any reason to consider the outreach as anything other than a success. My76Strat (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)