Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall

Not NPOV

I'm diametrically opposed to anything Beck does, but this article seems to go completely out of its way to bash him. The large number of quotes discussing the lack of merit in the case seems like a huge pile-on, and its only purpose seems to be to make it impossible for anyone to think that Beck is anything but an idiot. While schadenfreude is all fun and good, that's counter to our purpose here. Can we make the point more succinctly?

Also, while I'm at it, the article is awfully repetitive and in serious need of a copy editor. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest some independent reliable secondary sources that present an alternate perspective? Cirt (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be the way the information is presented. The Commentary section reads like a series of flattering movie reviews instead of commentary on an internet meme or a legal dispute. I personally don't feel that every single piece needs to be mentioned since it does have weight concerns due to the shear amount of content. Is all of the information relevant and if it is can it be summarized in a more concise manner?Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit too soon to start nitpicking. Best to sit back and compile more information, research, and secondary sources, and analyze in retrospect after the entire case has concluded. But the Commentary is what it is so far, commentary on the various aspects of the legal case. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I did a bit of copyediting, trimmed some quotes, and removed a significant amount of material [1]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New info, 21 Oct 2009

Didn't know where else to put this, but new developments - Beck filed, Arbitrator ordered, and we filed a surreply. Info here: http://gb1990.com/legal.php - again, putting this in talk here because I'm not touching the article itself. Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. And there's this, too.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
2. [Edited]: And this.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll update that soon. ;) Cirt (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Added a bit, I will add more later. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [2], not sure that would add anything of substance to the article. On an interesting sidenote as far as sources go, this post references this tweet at the bottom of the post, which in turn references this post, which appears to have plagiarized its info from this Wikinews article. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Start class?

I don't think "start class" is befitting of this article anymore; it seems well sourced and thorough (though a little repetitious), but I didn't do any source verification. I am going to nominate for a re-assessment. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the article's quality. :) I changed the rating to C-class. Cirt (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When will this case be decided?

As far as I can tell from the article, this case has not yet concluded. Assuming that's correct, when will it be decided? This makes a good story, but it feels a bit 'unfinished' at the moment. :) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that unless Beck's attorneys file any subsequent documents, the next event will be the ruling by the WIPO court, and then probably there will be some secondary source commentary on that development. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And it is likely such documents would appear at Citizen Media Law Project. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that these things have any set timelines, it could take awhile to get a result.--Milowent (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could shorter lead summarize the status??

It was too long for me to figure it out and I gave up. Did notice the web site is down, but haven't the faintest idea why. Please work on this someone :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead is too long - see WP:LEAD. Morphh ^(talk) 1:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on what should go?Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Summarize the article - go one section at a time. Limit the lead to about three paragraphs (and not the size of the jumbo paragraphs currently there). Morphh ^(talk) 1:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So you would rather complain than do it yourself :P (screwing with you). It looks like Cirt was going for making the lead worthy of standing on its own and summarizing each aspect of the article as is seen in all good articles. Some trimming is needed, though. I don't think I would cut anything form the first paragraph and would focus on the length of the third and fourth. Thoughts? Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, I have made the lede be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the article's contents. I am open to more specific suggestions, however. :) Cirt (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I trimmed the lede a bit, [3]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed a bit more, [4]. :) Cirt (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the original comment by Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) expressing confusion about the website's status, I made this a bit clearer in the lede. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)