Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1

Beck v. Eiland-Hall
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Beck v. Eiland-Hall is a fascinating legal case about freedom of speech and a challenge to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which was struck down by a decision relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.

The article has been through three stages of review so far: A deletion debate at WP:AFD, subsequently promoted to WP:GA quality, and then had a copy edit through the Guild of Copy Editors.

Looking for further input to advance the quality improvement process.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notified: User talk:Miniapolis, User talk:Hunter Kahn, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, User talk:Cirt. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 

Comments by GregJackP
*No alt text on most images. I'll try and look at it in more detail, but I can't do a full, thorough peer review. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 44 doesn't link to the indicated article.
 * No dab links.


 * Response to comments by GregJackP
 * Okay, thank you very much, I'll get on those points and then update back here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I added alt text for all images, and also asked Rejectwater to have a look at alt text. Ref 44 now has a correct link. That looks like all, for now. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the alts for the two images slightly. Not sure what to do about the others as they are documents, not images.  I highly doubt alts are required for pdf files.  However, if they are required, the alt texts would have to be the entire text of each document, which I have no desire to transcribe in any case.   As I said, I don't believe alt texts are required for documents.  It wouldn't make sense. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds great for now, thanks for those helpful improvements! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. GregJackP  Boomer!   15:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would look at the balance between the amount of text spent on Beck's initial complaint (section WIPO complaint), which was about 300 words, and the Eiland-Hall response, which was about 1275 words. I would try to expand the text on Beck's complaint.
 * Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is wikilinked several times, as well as discussed several times.
 * "See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)" should be removed, the wikilink is adequate.
 * " [Beck’s] got good lawyers. I’m very impressed with his attorneys. He’s got to know if he tried to file it in U.S. courts he would have gotten creamed," -- the brackets indicate that the original quote was edited. Since the edit was in the original article, there needs to be a parenthetical notice of the original edit, such as "(edit in original)".
 * "The meme is a parody of from [sic] Glenn Beck’s own argumentation style...." -- same for this quote - the sic is in the original an needs to be identified as such.
 * Thank you! I'll get on addressing these straightaway. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your helpful suggestions, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to 2nd set of comments by GregJackP
 * 1) This is as reflected of the coverage given to these two events from secondary sources. Beck and his lawyers gave no comments during the entire procedure to media, whereas Eiland-Hall and his representation did comment to media. Therefore, there was much less able to find in research from secondary sources about the initial complaint itself from Beck.
 * 2) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is wikilinked several times, because it is so crucial to the very crux of the legal argument and final determination in the case, and was even cited by the final decision of the WIPO court itself.
 * 3) Done. Changed to add "(edit in original)" directly after the edit.
 * 4) Done. Changed to add "(edit in original)" directly after the edit.


 * Update: I've done a significant amount of copy editing, in particular trimming down amount of quotations in the article. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
If this article were a penny, it would land tails side every time. I think you need to do something about that. I doubt you can balance the arguments completely, since pro-Beck sources were few, but you need to make the old college try here. I read your comment that well, Beck didn't say anything whereas the other side did. There's still an issue.


 * Lede
 * In the first paragraph, the website is described as "satirical". Was and is this a term accepted by both sides to the litigation?
 * " Randazza asserted Beck's action (going to the WIPO to get the website taken down) contradicted his previous statements that he preferred U.S. law over international law." Does this legally make a difference? Or is it a "gotcha" moment (same with stipulating to the 1st Amendent a little later). It strikes me that the lede is too focused on the case as a bellwether of free speech (and possibly as something in Glen Beck's face) and needs more dispassion.
 * Why is it not POV to mention only one side's counsel?
 * "stipulate to the … " To its authenticity? Or do you mean its applicability in the proceeding? suggest a slight edit.
 * The last paragraph needs balance. It is all one side of the issue. Please do not use Beck to balance it, use those who supported him.
 * The giving of the website sounds very odd. It has been a while since I dealt with such things, but giving him the username and password doesn't change ownership, only filling out the proper forms and so forth with the internet registrar. I looked ahead to how you described it in the body.


 * Background
 * I think you need to separate out better the original "joke" with the Beck incident.
 * You need to properly introduce who Beck is for non-American readers. This can be an opportunity for balance, for example by mentioning the size of his audience, estimated annual income, awards, that sort of thing.  Pretend he's a First Amendment attorney. :)
 * I would add "intending it as" before your statement that it was a parody.
 * Every quote or cite I see is approving of Eiland-Hall's actions. If it is so obvious as to be unanimous, then most of it can be safely deleted for running up the score.  If it is not so obvious as to meet that standard, then perhaps some disapproving views can be cited.
 * "a way to focus exasperation around Beck's style of commentary into action." I cannot say I've ever listened to him much, but I don't think he spends three hours a day five days a week asking people to prove negatives. Is there anything else, other than his style of how he asks people stuff like that, for which he might come under criticism and that Eiland-Hall and his supporters might disagree with him on? (warning: it's loaded)


 * Litigation
 * If Eiland-Hall chose not to be identified with WHOIS, that should probably be mentioned in the previous section, somewhere around the time you stress that it was just a parody.
 * eNom or NameCheap?
 * The third paragraph of this section seems to be matters that that should just be rolled (if you are rolling, and not having a bong hit 4 Jesus) into the chronology. Possibly if there are materials there not supported by a non-party, then possibly cite to Eiland-Hall inline. But the whole repeated calls to Gawker are inelegant. I do have my doubts Gawker is reliable, and I gather that is why you are repeatedly mentioning it, but I'm not sure that's the best way to handle it.  You are still heavily relying on an opiniony, dubiously reliable source.  Is there any better source available for any of these points?
 * For what reason did Eiland-Hall register additional domain names? If it was to ensure his page would remain, I think that should be made clearer given that much is made of his turning over the domain name later.
 * The mention of the connection of "Anonymous" with this, including the YouTube and so forth seems very brief and generic. In fact, I overlooked it until I started pulling up the sources.
 * Litigation
 * I see not only is Eiland-Hall's counsel named and repeatedly quoted in the body, but that Beck's counsel is not, and that for each round of briefing, the amount of space given to Eiland-Hall is larger, in one case considerably so. The analysis of Eiland-Hall's briefs seems considerably more detailed. You also allow one of the sections devoted to Beck's argument to be ended with a quote from Eiland-Hall.  I do not see you end any of the sections devoted to Eiland-Hall's argument with a rebutting quote from Beck or a representative. In fact, one of them ends with Eiland-Hall's lawyer allowed to set forth his personal views at length in an interview.  So, to summarize, both "merits" sections end with a quote setting forth Eiland-Hall's position or denigrating Beck's.
 * Since Eiland-Hall hired counsel when Beck's counsel made requests on him, presumably this happened earlier? Accordingly it should say "had hired" or similar And how was this possible when they didn't know who he was? Ditto on them mentioning Eiland-Hall in the complaint, as you say they did.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take any of this the wrong way by the way. It's a fine article, and this is why you have peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No no no, very helpful comments all! I've begun implementing your recommendations and noting it in the edit summary of the edits. I'm going to trim a lot more emphasis on the Eiland-Hall/Randazza side of things, but really I've look in all the secondary source material and there's just not much out there describing the Beck position. There's zero commentary about his lawyers specifically, and none from secondary sources supporting the rationale of his position in the legal case. Not sure what can be done about that. It's just that the article reflects the preponderance of secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There were some secondary sources that looked neutral on a hasty glance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ones ? I'll go back over them and see if I can add more from them. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Response to comments by Wehwalt
 * Lede
 * 1) Done. Moved "satirical" to later section of lede, good point.
 * 2) Done. Removed this info from lede.
 * 3) Done. Removed all mention of anyone's counsel from lede.
 * 4) Done. Removed this from the lede, per above.
 * 5) Done. Added more info about Beck to last paragraph of lede. But really this is only to note that in repeated requests by multiple different respected media organizations including for example PC Magazine and National Public Radio, his representatives refused to provide comment.
 * 6) Done. Removed this from the lede, as not directly relevant to the case itself.


 * Background
 * 1) Done. Separated background on joke to its own sect.
 * 2) Note: In process of doing some more research on best way to go about this one. I won't object if someone else wanted to add this info themselves in a new sub sect of the Background sect.
 * 3) Done. Added "intending it as", makes sense, thanks.
 * 4) Done. Removed a whole slew of quotes throughout the article.
 * 5) Note: No, I don't think secondary sources focused much on anything other than this particular aspect of his commentary style. However, if you come across something different in secondary sources about this specific point, please let me know and I'll add it in.


 * Litigation
 * 1) Done. Added note about WHOIS to earlier sect in article where you suggested.
 * 2) Done. NameCheap. Fixed the ambiguity here, thanks.
 * 3) Done. Greatly trimmed this paragraph. "Rolled" it, as you say, into an earlier paragraph. Trimmed out multiple quotations.
 * 4) Done. Removed this bit, not directly relevant to the legal case itself.
 * 5) Done. Removed this part, not necessary to mention this for reader comprehension of chain of events.
 * 6) Done. Removed lots of quotations. Removed multiple mentions of counsel. Note that there are really not many if any mentions of Beck's counsel by name in secondary sources.
 * 7) Done. Removed this bit. Anyways I think their initial complaint named "Whois" as a party essentially like a John Doe; they probably modified this when he went public with his identity.

Thanks very much,, I tried to address the vast bulk of these point-by-point and the article looks much better and tighter for it. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josve05a (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks very much, will get on addressing above, point-by-point, soon, but will be traveling out of town with limited Internet access shortly so will be slower than usual to respond to above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we're all good with respect to all of these points, thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)