Jump to content

Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 07:21, 12 November 2009 (→Could shorter lead summarize the status??: ++ update, trimmed a bit more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2009.

Sources

It is good to see someone went through the effort to format the sources. It does come across a little knee-jerk in response to the AfD as is. We still need to consider quality so consider removing it if anything looks overly bloggish and lets move them into inline cites instead of that list.Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bostonist is part of Gothamist which isn't a no no on the RS noticeboard but it looks to be user contributed. Isn't needed for now but the refs are here in case they need to be checked or reincluded:

Cptnono (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google bomb

Please insert it if anyone finds a source for this. Also,info on Youtube and additional methods of propagation could be of use.Cptnono (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work for a source? http://www.google-bombs.com/?p=367 Glenn Beck Being Google Bombed! --70.181.237.167 (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to contribute the music video I made- Glenn Beck (No Alibi) under a CC license to the Commons if appropriate --Gwsuperfan (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwsuperfan - though the song itself at Glenn Beck (No Alibi) may be your own original content, the video and images used are not. Thus the video portion of the music video could not be licensed by you under a free use license. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt - I can get the audio only. Gwsuperfan (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't meet the policies and guidelines in a few ways (I'll go with "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." per WP:ELNO) Funny stuff, though.Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer interviewed

  • Brayton, Ed (October 8, 2009). "Interview with Marc Randazza". Declaring Independence. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WPRR.

The lawyer for Eiland-Hall, Marc Randazza, was interviewed by Ed Brayton on the program Declaring Independence, on WPRR, See some additional info at [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Do you know off the top of your head if there is a transcript floating around?Cptnono (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. In the interview, Randazza discusses the Supreme Court of the United States case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine has transcribed it. Would that be helpful? I need to clean it up a little, which was planning on doing today... then uploading it, perhaps to gb1990.net where I have the legal docs posted - but maybe in gb1990.net/interviews or something... I'll edit this when I get it uploaded... Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fantastic primary source! Thank you, Isaac.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it here: http://gb1990.net/radio/20091008-MarcRandazzaInterview.txt - Full disclosure: It was a friend of mine who transcribed it, although the interview itself is in that same directory on the server, so anyone can listen for themselves :) And I'm glad to be able to help. This is really awesome to see this article here. :) Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because I want to use the cite episode template. A link is not required but it would make verification easier for people. Unfortunately, we can not link to copyright violations which I think is the case for the video/audio presented above.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an appropriate usage, IMO, as the copyright is likely that of WPRR. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Cirt, probably not.
Hey, Isaac, do you think that WPRR's Ed Brayton has got the wherewithall to grant it a Creative Commons 2.0 license so I could post it on Wikisource?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Audio, and Text. :) Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some info here [5]. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Brayton, Ed (October 8, 2009). "Interview with Marc Randazza". Declaring Independence. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WPRR.
  2. "Glenn Beck Seeks to Take Down Parody Website Using 'Unpatriotic' International Law". ChattahBox. chattahbox.com. October 8, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-09.
  3. Brayton, Ed (October 8, 2009). "Radio Show Preview 10-8-09". ScienceBlogs. Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2009-10-09.
  4. Schmelzer, Paul (October 7, 2009). "Glenn Beck appeals to international body to shut down satirical site". Minnesota Independent. Retrieved 2009-10-08.
  5. Brayton, Ed (October 6, 2009). "Brilliant Response to Beck Case". ScienceBlogs. Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  6. "Beck DESTROYED after efforts to get rid of site parodying him". Daily Kos. Kos Media, LLC. October 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  7. Brayton, Ed (October 5, 2009). "Beck Tries to Kill Parody Website". ScienceBlogs. Seed Media Group. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  8. Schmidt, Steffen (October 5, 2009). "Media Meme's and Glenn Beck – Truth or Lies?". Des Moines Register. The Des Moines Register. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  9. Sawyer, Rick (October 1, 2009). "Today in Randazza's Zings: Glenn Beck, Why Do You Hate America?". Bostonist. Gothamist. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  10. Sawyer, Rick (September 30, 2009). "Gloucester Lawyer Defends Satirical Glenn Beck Website". Bostonist. Gothamist. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  11. "Traffic details from Alexa". Alexa Internet. Alexa Internet, Inc. 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-06.
  12. Hesslam, Jessica (2009-10-02). "Bay State lawyer takes on FOX yakker". Boston Herald. Retrieved 2009-10-03.
  13. Davis, Wendy (2009-09-30). "Glenn Beck Urges Parody Site Be Shut Down". MediaPost. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  14. Anderson, Nate (2009-09-09). "Can a mere domain name be defamation? Glenn Beck says yes". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  15. Quigley, Robert (2009-09-03). "Anti-Beck Backlash Hits Nauseating Extreme with "Murder and Rape" Meme (UPDATED THRICE)". Mediaite. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  16. Citizen Media Law Project staff (2009). "Beck v. Eiland-Hall". Citizen Media Law Project. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
  17. Cook, John (2009-09-09). "Glenn Beck, PR Genius, Spreads the False Rumor He Raped and Murdered a Young Girl in 1990". Gawker. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  18. Citizen Media Law Project staff (2009-09-11). "Will Glenn Beck Sue a Defamatory Website in 2009?". Citizen Media Law Project. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  19. Gardner, Eriq (2009-09-29). "Glenn Beck Satire Site Fights Back". Adweek. Retrieved 2009-10-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  20. Carvin, Andy (2009-10-02). "Glenn Beck Internet Meme Gets Ugly". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  21. Allemann, Andrew (2009-10-01). "Hot off Press: Domain Owner Responds to Glenn Beck". Domain Name Wire. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  22. Bremer, Jack (2009-09-11). "Fox's Glenn Beck fights 'rape and murder' website". The First Post. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  23. Anderson, Nate (2009-09-30). "Memes strike back: Gerbils, gay blood elves, and Glenn Beck". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  24. Weiss, Jeffrey (2009-09-17). "The 'Glenn Beck as Murderer' Meme: Vaccine or Infection?". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2009-10-04. {{cite news}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)
  25. Masnick, Michael (2009-09-08). "Glenn Beck Didn't Rape And Murder Anyone... But He Doesn't Want Websites Discussing It". Techdirt. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  26. "Glenn Beck Introduced to the Streisand Effect". FoxNewsBoycott.com. 2009-09-10. Retrieved 2009-10-04.
  27. Emerson, Jim (2009-10-02). Chicago Sun-Times http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/10/all_your_beck_are_belong_to_us.html. Retrieved 2009-10-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  28. Manes, Billy (2009-10-07). "Happytown". Orlando Weekly. Retrieved 2009-10-12. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Cirt (talk)

Free speech

Randazza made this request due to Beck's political commentary favoring the United States Constitution over international law.[12][13] It should be made clear that they were trying to make a point. They are essentially going "haha in your face haha in your face". I am trying to find a source summarizing that a little more professionally, though.Cptnono (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, best to go by what the sources say, instead of what we believe to be true. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I am saying we shoulod double check to see if there is a source. I did not find one from a quick check and don't want to cherry pick if only one lame one is found. However, I think it is noteworthy if a good source does discuss it. I also think it is funny but that is my personal thoughts on it.Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. :P Cirt (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of blogs point out the irony but I hate using blogs. Jim Emerson looks decnt but it is still a blog.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that guy appears to be a legitimate journalist for the Chicago Sun-Times... Cirt (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add "irony/the irony was commented on..." somewhere in the line but am having a hard time piecing in where.Cptnono (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best to have that sort of stuff in the Commentary section. And keep the other sections of the article just to a bland, factual history in chronological order. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs written by a notable authority on a subject are OK to use about that subject. (This would be determined by whether a blog's author is a generally recognized authority on the subject, according to sources themselves deemed to be reliable, or else through the blog's having won awards, or through the blog's being used as a source by sources themselves deemed reliable, etc. [And, of course, on an unrelated point: a blog's author is considered, generally, an authority about him or herself, with regard to mundane and unlikely-to-be-controversial details of his or her life, as well.])↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimers

Eiland-Hall placed two disclaimers at the top of the site which prominently describe it as a form of parody.[1] Another source (it should be in the refs and I will start looking if needed) said that it was a disclaimer at the bottom. Through OR (blast!) I know that for some time it was only a single disclaimer at the bottom. It also looks like we are starting to play for the defence. Most of the sources are poking fun at Beck for this and we need to make sure we do not unintentionally adopt that tone.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as what the sources say, that is what we have to go by. Per WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agian, it was just a heads up in case anyone came across some other sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. :) Cirt (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Is anybody interested in helping to expand

or cleanup the article "Marc Randazza"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow (talk • contribs)

I am currently focusing on cleanup/expansion of this article. Will take a look at that one later. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Formatted all the cites in the article, using WP:CIT. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest some independent reliable secondary sources that present an alternate perspective? Cirt (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Update: I did a bit of copyediting, trimmed some quotes, and removed a significant amount of material [6]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. And there's this, too.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. [Edited]: And this.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll update that soon. ;) Cirt (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added a bit, I will add more later. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [7], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Update: I trimmed the lede a bit, [8]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed a bit more, [9]. :) Cirt (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beck_v._Eiland-Hall&oldid=325397510"