Talk:AV2

Why "patent troll" is generally inappropriate for Wikipedia

• The term is pejorative and loaded. It carries strong negative connotations of abusive, opportunistic, or even extortionate behavior (e.g., suing or threatening over weak/broad patents primarily to extract settlements rather than genuinely contributing to innovation). Wikipedia's own article on patent trolls acknowledges this: it's a "categorical or pejorative term," not a precise legal one, and definitions vary widely. It's often applied to non-practicing entities (NPEs) that enforce patents aggressively, but not all NPEs qualify, and the label is subjective and disputed.

• Wikipedia's core content policies—especially Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and No Original Research—strongly discourage loaded language. Editors are expected to describe facts neutrally (e.g., "Sisvel is a Luxembourg-based NPE that administers patent pools") and attribute strong opinions or criticisms to reliable sources, rather than stating them in Wikipedia's voice. Slangy or inflammatory terms like "patent troll," "vulture," or "troll" rarely meet that bar unless they're widely used in high-quality, independent sources and clearly contextualized as opinion.

• In practice, many Wikipedia articles on companies or technologies avoid the phrase entirely, opting for more neutral descriptors like "non-practicing entity," "patent assertion entity," or simply describing the business model (patent pool administration, licensing, litigation history if reliably sourced).
• If multiple high-quality, independent reliable sources (e.g., major tech journalism, court rulings, or industry analyses) consistently and prominently label Sisvel as a patent troll in the specific context of AV2, then a sentence like "Critics have described Sisvel as a patent troll" could potentially be included—with proper attribution and balance (including Sisvel's response if sourced). But even then, it's better to describe specific behaviors (e.g., "Sisvel has faced accusations of aggressive licensing practices...") than to drop the label baldly.

Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

this sounds like an LLM wrote it and Non-practicing entity literally redirects to Patent troll so I don't see how calling a NPE a patent troll is "subjective and disputed" and I also don't see how WP:NPOV or WP:OR apply here Laura240406 (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires that articles describe topics in a way that is proportionate, verifiable, and not dependent on editorial judgment or loaded language. Terms such as "patent troll" are inherently value-laden and can be interpreted as taking a position, so they should not appear in Wikipedia's own voice unless they are clearly attributed to reliable sources in context. Where such terminology is used in reliable secondary sources, it can be appropriate to include it as attributed commentary (e.g., "X has been described by sources as a 'patent troll'"), but it should not be presented as fact or adopted as Wikipedia's characterization. The goal is not to avoid describing criticism, but to ensure that criticism is represented as attributed viewpoints rather than editorial endorsement. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

once again, Non-practicing entity literally links to Patent troll so I don't see how that is value-laden

also, ignoring that you changed your comment, you did state that the response was LLM generated in the first revision so please have a look at WP:LLMCOMM and WP:HATGPT Laura240406 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a category issue here. The question isn't whether the term appears in sources, but whether it functions as a neutral descriptor or as evaluative shorthand. Wikipedia generally avoids the latter in its own voice, even when the underlying conduct is well-documented.

A useful comparison is how articles handle criminal cases: even where reliable sources use strongly judgmental language, Wikipedia typically sticks to precise, descriptive terms (e.g., charges, convictions, legal findings) and leaves more interpretive or emotive characterizations attributed to sources. That approach keeps the article anchored in verifiable facts rather than adopting any particular framing, that you seem to be a huge fan of.

Applying the same principle here, if the term in question is primarily used as a critical or rhetorical label rather than a clearly defined classification, then it should be attributed and contextualized, not used as a baseline description. Otherwise, the article risks embedding a particular evaluative perspective into its voice rather than summarizing the range of views reflected in reliable sources. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia generally avoids the latter in its own voice" is literally wrong in this case given that, once again, Non-practicing entity (which is apparently an acceptable description in the article) redirects to Patent troll. Laura240406 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)