Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall/Archive 1

Title
If kept, I think the title could be redone as suggested at the Glenn Beck talk page. I do not feel "Beck v. Eiland-Hall" would be appropriate just because the case is pending from what I understand. That would be approporiate if the case does go forward, though. "Rape satire of Glenn Beck" or something similar might be a little cleaner.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about Glenn Beck rumor parody website. Clean, easy to remember, obvious what it means. LK (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we call it a rumor? Per are article a rumor is often viewed as an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern.  It was never started as a rumor, it has always been a satire meme.   Also, it's not a law suit as far as I understand, it's just a compliant to the domain name board.   Morphh   (talk) 12:24, 05 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is a parody of a rumor website, i.e. a parody of the websites created by groups such as the birthers. How about we call it Glenn Beck parody rumor website or Glenn Beck rumor website parody. Which makes it more clear that it is a parody of a rumor website about Glenn Beck? LK (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LK, of course Wikipedia needs to avoid implying the parody to have been 'by Beck, as well -- but, once you figure out the formulation you like best, keeping in mind the ambiguity issue I've just raised, I think it would be OK for you to move the article there, until or unless opinion coalesces around moving to the name of a future legal case(?)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E ’ her''e&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Naming conventions, I've boldly moved the article to "Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy," which I believe to be less imprecise and ambiguous than the previous title of "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." (There are many websites parodizing Beck while mentioning rumors.)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 23:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout
I have said at the AfD that people might be chicken littling and assuming this is an attack page. The meme./attack/whatever is shit. Now that that is out of the way: this has the information to expand past a stub. We have to watch out for WP:RECENTISM but we should get a layout. The lead can be the shortest part so what are the important aspects to use as subject headers? Lead->Meme(essentially "history" + "description"->Legal->See also(list of internet phenomena + others if not in the prose)->Refs->External links (should just be site for now)). Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I started it, with some subsections. :) Cirt (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fark link
I restored the link to the Fark thread in "External links," as the primary source credited by the creator of the website for his idea for his parody of Beck (per WP:PRIMARY). ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that? Techdirt says the same thing but citing blogs for when a parody was started is just ignoring WP:RS on a multitude of levels. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Google" found this: "The origin of the website is an Internet meme that came into being on Fark.com."---Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project (link: which source is not self-published, as far as I can tell, but a professional new media site?) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  08:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it help that I myself say this? I put two links on the site on the left - the two "Origin" links. One goes to the very first person ("oldweevil") that posted it. Link: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4608536&IDComment=54042337#c54042337 -- I saw that thread the next day, registered the domain, and the rest is history. I'm just not sure what works for sources with Wikipedia. Also, although I've found this talk page and article, I will restrict myself to commenting here on the talk page - I will refrain from editing the actual article itself. I can't believe it won't be deleted, but I think it's really cool to see it. It popped up on a google news search... If there's anything I can do to help out, please feel free to send an email to the email address I have posted on the site (shortest link: http://gb1990.com/ ). Any way I can help, I will (and I figure one of the ways to help is to NOT edit the article. heh.) Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional possible sources of info
Cirt (talk)


 * As I and others find sources, they are put here: http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com/discussion/index.php?topic=50.0 -- don't know if that helps, but I hope it does. Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we not just name the website once?
This article would be a lot cleaerr and useful if we just named website. I don't think we need to name it more than once, and it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. And I fail to see how it's BLP violation if it's put in the appropriate context. If you came to this article and were unfamilar with the meme, you'd have no idea what this article was talking about. If knew the Gottfried/Sagat joke, then you might be able to figure it out, but I'm not so sure. I think with careful writing and appropriate context we can use the website name--once--and make this article a whole lot clearer while still conforming with BLP requirements. Yilloslime T C  23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, there are three domains that go to the site: GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com, and gb1990.com. Perhaps the latter would be useful? Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * Not really, no. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * @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)
 * @Cirt - I can get the audio only. Gwsuperfan (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Lawyer interviewed


The lawyer for Eiland-Hall, Marc Randazza, was interviewed by Ed Brayton on the program Declaring Independence, on WPRR, See some additional info at, , and. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That would be a fantastic primary source! Thank you, Isaac.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Isaac, I don't know what its copyright might be but still I went and parked a copy of your transcipt here: Talk:Beck v. Eiland-Hall/Marc Randazza - interview -- for the time being.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an appropriate usage, IMO, as the copyright is likely that of WPRR. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 &#8202;E ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Audio, and Text. :) Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Randazza's website "The Legal Satyricon"
Some info here. Cirt (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * Agian, it was just a heads up in case anyone came across some other sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. :) Cirt (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'd agree with that. :P Cirt (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, that guy appears to be a legitimate journalist for the Chicago Sun-Times... Cirt (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#8202;E ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Update: Formatted all the cites in the article, using WP:CIT. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Links and possible sources to go through


Cirt (talk)

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 . :) 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 &#8202;E&#8202;  ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [Edited]: And this.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202;  ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;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, 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, . :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Trimmed a bit more, . :) Cirt (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the original comment by 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)
 * Still way too long. Remove all the mildly important details.. this is a brief summary.  Also, the lead does not make it clear up front - Why is this important?  Why did this get so much attention?  I'd say that it's not about Glenn Beck but the unique aspect of Domain Name litigation.  The lead does not make this clear that this is a unique and historic case that makes it important and notable.   Morphh   (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added back a teensy bit but otherwise looks good. :) Cirt (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Per above comment by, added some info to lede regarding unique and historic nature of case . Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking much better! Thanks. :-) Morphh   (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for your help. :) Cirt (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced change
= this change by is not backed up by the cited source at the end of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity
Although not directly applicable to the case, the anonymity of Eiland-Hall is worthy of more than the cursory mention here. Eiland-Hall accidentally left an electronic trail in spite of his anonymous domain registration and efforts to disguise his identity (including his web hosting service and the unmentioned but notable unsigned-but-not-anonymous Wikipedia edit). Once discovered, Hall claimed he was only hosting the website for a client, and that he was not the creator. The article gives the impression that he was initially anonymous, then discovered through legal proceedings, while the real story is more complex. I would think that all this would be worthy of mention, but if there's a reason why it's unmentioned, I'd want to hear it before making changes. Calbaer (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We would need a WP:RS secondary source to support changes. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: I never have ever edited any wiki entries themselves, although I have talked a couple of times on discussion pages like this one. I just wanted to make sure that's known. I'm pretty sure anyone could go back and look at IP addresses and confirm that. Well, I guess I could have edited a page from outside my home - but I didn't. My most major mistake was setting up the site on my server's main IP address and basically repurposing HTML/CSS from another site. In hindsight.... Also, there was much fun when a certain website tracked me down - someone suggested I edit the 404 for the site and copy/paste Acorn's 404, which I did, which did cause much rampant speculation... hehe. However, although my information was out there, the legal response was what definitely uncovered me - when the WIPO dispute was filed, my options were 1) give in and keep my privacy (theoretically) or 2) respond to WIPO and have my identity out there. I might have gotten away with my story that I was just hosting the site before making the decision to respond to WIPO. Also, I haven't re-read the article in a while... I just periodically check this (well, it's been a few months) - saw that comment and felt compelled to write here. :) Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting, to be sure, but on Wikipedia we must stick to what has been reported on already, in reliable secondary sources - thus remaining an encyclopedic tertiary source. -- Cirt (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate wikilink for word "irony"
Edits by Though these edits are amusing, it's inappropriate to link an entire part of a sentence in this way to the word "Irony". Please let's leave that out, thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2

Guild of Copy Editors
I've put in a request for this article to be copy-edited, by WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: This has since been ✅. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes are as per the GA Review
Footnotes are as per recommendations from the GA Review.

Please, let's leave them in this article.

This article should function as a standalone quality article -- and not depend on other Wikipedia articles to explain things -- articles that may or may not be of as high a quality version such as this WP:GA.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to BDD for being understanding about the GA Review recommendations. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)