This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Internet Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments TikTok This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles

A fact from Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2024 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that TikTok rallied its users to protest a bill that would potentially ban the app? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

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

• As I explained in the edit summaries, your edits have massively removed well-sourced material and inserted content not directly supported by the cited source. Your seemingly random removals of text have resulted in quotes not supported by the citation used. Not cool. Neutrality ^talk 22:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• As I have explained in my edit summary, my concern is that you are using sources that predate coverage of this article's subject. This risks introducing content forks, original research, outdated and unbalanced information. I have summarised the background using only sources that are more recent and relevant to this PAFACA. CurryCity ( talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• This makes no sense whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia. Our policies aren't buzzwords to be invoked without explanation. Neutrality ^talk 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Using outdated sources that do not mention an article's subject would allow anyone to add old information of their choosing to a new topic regardless of balance and due weight. CurryCity ( talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Which "sources" are "outdated" or "don't mention the article's subject"? What's "old information"? I have no clue what you are going on about. Is this some sort of strange dilatory tactic? Neutrality ^talk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Ones that are old and not reporting on PAFACA were removed [1]. I have restored the Axios source because it was easily missed at first, but as you can see, most of the new ones you added that actually mention this latest bill I did not remove them. CurryCity ( talk) 10:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Individual concerns

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

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

• I have asked you politely to list the sentences and am asking you again to do so in a way that is easier to review. CurryCity ( talk) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

1. "criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities" ^[1] What are your concerns and suggestion?

• OK, to be clear: you're admitting that the prior text, which you shoved into the article at least twice, was not supported by the cited source? And then, once called out on it, you're introducing a new source to try to post hoc support it? And, for the record: the new source you're offering is low-quality, it is undue weight, and it still doesn't support the assertion made (we can't take a "critics say..." statement and then use it for a statement in wikivoice). This is really painfully obvious stuff. And, I'm not going to play whac-a-mole, statement-by-statement, like this. Just stop and familiarize yourself with core Wiki policies. Neutrality ^talk 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I only restored some of your changes and cannot be held responsible for every edit that happened before then, but clearly it was not in wikivoice in the first place [2] "Critics, however, objected to the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian voices on social media, where TikTok has been used to expose and condemn Israel's atrocities", so your characterisation is inaccurate. CurryCity ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The "Protecting bill" is notable independelty of "Restrictions", however "Proposed divestment" is unnotable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ InfiniteNexus: To explain, the bill that Biden signed into law today is the National Security Act, 2024. The House of Representatives amended the RELIEVE Act to include the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act referred to in the National Security Act is a separate legislative entity. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait, so the "Protecting" and "21st Century" acts are both part of the same National Security Act? If so, then let's move this article to National Security Act, 2024 and merge the info you had on the Proposed divestment article. In any case, we shouldn't have so many articles covering the same thing. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act's provisions were merged into the National Security Act. The act, as passed by Biden, includes the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The National Security Act also includes the provisions for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It would be improper to move this page given that. I have created National Security Act, 2024 to cover the act's provisions, as it appears that such a substantial expenditure will have some impact on the war in Ukraine. I support merging this article into that one. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If the National Security Act includes both the Protecting Americans and 21st Century provisions, then I don't see why they can't co-exist on the same article about the foreign aid. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please stop creating articles until we sort this out Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ha, I've tried that one before. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I support the proposal that the article Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is renamed to whatever the name of the overarching legislation is (I am still a little confused on that), while Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance becomes a redirect (probably to the aforementioned article, but possibly to Restrictions on TikTok in the United States), with any relevant information merged into appropriate articles. Should a request be opened? – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No, please don't. We can resolve this speedily through normal discussion; RM takes forever and only does a disservice to readers. If there are concerns after we sort this out, then an RM may be held, but I think there wouldn't be any opposition to fixing the current state of mess (which I too am confused with). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, alright. I think I agree with that. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I personally think this article stays where it is, it's clearly notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To clarify, which possible fix is your current preference? – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ CurryCity:@ Neutrality: these two have been significant contributors Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I was thinking we should move this article to whatever the final/overarching legislation is called, and then merge the contents of the other article(s) here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds great now just the probelm of what that is? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If it is National Security Act, 2024, I think the article with more history (the one this talk is for) should be kept, and that it should be adapted with relevant information, such as from the article currently at National Security Act, 2024, which itself would be merged into the article. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article can be renamed, its got the most history wise. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Consider that the National Security Act, 2024 is independently notable for its appropriations to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The TikTok portion of the bill is not the entirety of its scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

So we would rename the article and include information about those, while keeping the article that has the most history. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Then I guess we're back to my original alt proposal to reverse-merge the "Proposed divestment" article into here, and then move it to a generic title like Proposed TikTok ban in the United States (I think calling this a "proposal ... by ByteDance" is ambiguous). Even if it's not exactly a ban, it effectively is, and it's already demonstrably the common name. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

(This is under my assumption that "Protecting" and "21st Century" are two completely separate entities. If this isn't accurate, please correct me.) InfiniteNexus ( talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We are? I had not been mentioning that article. I am not so sure we should give this a generic title, but I suppose we can. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it needs a generic name. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) I was referring to the original merge discussion on that page. My number one preference is still to rename this to the "final" iteration of the legislation, but apparently that final form is the National Security Act that includes the foreign aid package (which is why they were able to pass this so quickly), and an editor believes we should have separate articles for the act as a whole and its two TikTok provisions (Protecting and 21st Century). The alternative to a generic title would be Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, which obviously wouldn't work. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Why should we have separate articles for the Act as a whole and its TikTok-related provisions? I believe they could be under one article. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I agree that the best course is to merge/redirecting this article on previous proposals to the enacted version. It can be discussed in a "legislative history" section. Neutrality ^talk 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait a minute, according to this source, the National Security Act contains four bills, three of which are about foreign aid and the last of which is the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, "which includes a modified version of the TikTok ban that passed the House earlier this year". It seems this article should remain at its current title and its contents be adjusted accordingly. Not sure whether National Security Act, 2024 should exist as a separate page or be merged here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The final legislation contains four primary divisions, as the article mentions. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and 21st Century Peace through Strength Act exist in the National Security Act. The sanctions against Iran, Syria, and Hamas in the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act do not appear to warrant a separate article. The independent Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act did not officially pass in the Senate, only the version mentioned in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Based on my understanding, the Protecting act was modified and incorporated into the 21st Century act, which was then passed as part of the National Security Act that Biden signed today. Is that correct? So, since the 21st Century act includes other things unrelated to TikTok, as does the National Security Act that includes three other bills, this article should stay as it is. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, but the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act that was passed in March is not the same entity as the act that was passed in the National Security Act. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter though, 21st Century just includes a "modified version" of PAFACA. We can't name this article 21st Century because it includes other unrelated things, and we can't call this article National Security Act because it also includes other things. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well ... I mean, I guess it would be OK to move this to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act and briefly discuss the non-TikTok information. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I propose that this article be merged into the National Security Act article and the divestment article remain as it is in order to encompass any legal challenges in greater detail; the National Security Act is not all about TikTok. InfiniteNexus, I ask that you reconsider your bold redirect until this has been discussed in full. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

So now you believe there should not be separate articles for the National Security Act as a whole and the PAFACA/21st Century bill? If so, just copy-and-paste the contents of that new page, redirect it here, and then we can move this page there. I'm not sure what you mean by my BOLD redirect of the Proposed divestment of TikTok by ByteDance page, which consensus had already decided shouldn't exist. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No. The National Security Act article needs to cover the entirety of that act's provisions, without additional weight for the TikTok divestment portion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Re-reading your comment. You seem to be saying there should be one article about the National Security Act and another about the TikTok bill(s). Regardless of what the latter article is titled, it should result from a move of this page because it has the oldest history.

In sum, our three options are:

• Remain at Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the original bill
• Move to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which includes a modified version of the above
• Merge with National Security Act, 2024, which includes the "21st Century" bill
• Move to a generic name for the 2024 effort to ban TikTok in the U.S.

Given this turns out to be a quite complicated matter, I would be open to an RM after all. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Came here via New Page Patrol. I agree a separate article is warranted for National Security Act, 2024, versus Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. But I think the name of this article is wrong as the scope appears to be all legislation the US passed or considered passing that bans TikTok, not one specific bill, and it should be titled as such. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That article already exists. It is Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, with information dating back to the Trump administration. This article (regardless of what it ends up being titled) is about the recent (2024) effort to ban TikTok. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Let's take a moment so determin if the other bills in the National Security Act are even notable as opposed to this one which is very clearly notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree that determining the notability of the other bills is important. I support a move to National Security Act, 2024, so long as its other provisions are notable enough to warrant this. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 12:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In the alternative case, the article currently at National Security Act, 2024 could be redirected and the existing article kept at its current title. If the National Security Act is notable enough to have its own article but not a substantial amount of content, the status quo could be kept with both articles remaining. I do not support a move to 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, as that is at an intermediate level in the hierarchy of this law. Moving to a generic name is an opinion if the above options do not work out. – Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• There's only one enacted act. The text ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text) clarifies. The final legislation (inartfully called H.R. 815, long title "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes" but usually just called the 2024 national security supplemental) incorporates different (formerly separate) pieces of legislation as separate "divisions." So the TikTok provisions are Division H of the Act, the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act is Division D, the Israel aid is Division A, the Ukraine aid is Division B, the Taiwan aide is Division C, etc. I think it's most more efficient to handle all in one unified article, with separate subsections. Neutrality ^talk 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  "DIVISION H—PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS ACT" appears to be part of "DIVISION D—21ST CENTURY PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH ACT", according to the table of contents nested under Division D. The White House calls the overall legislation H.R. 815; I don't see any mention of "National Security Act" and am wondering where ElijahPepe came up with that. That is basically what was already established above: there was the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was then incorporated into the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, which was then incorporated into H.R.815 (a.k.a. "National Security Act"). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I found it: [3]. This Act may be cited as the "National Security Act, 2024" InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Slight correction, an amended version of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act was included in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act. The distinction is important, because what the House passed independently and what appeared in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act are different, even without consideration for the extended timeframe for ByteDance to divest TikTok. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Remain or rename. The efforts to ban TikTok since late 2023 are notable due to the heavy media coverage. The other acts are there only to fast-track this. They have very different purpose, background, and legislative histories and are not nearly as notable without the part about banning TikTok. Newsback ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply