Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 17, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It makes no sense. I don't see a point in merging the two separate court cases, one before the Supreme Court of the State of California and the other before the US Supreme Court. It makes no sense. -- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I added the external link to this article that was just published in the Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review called "Electronic Games & the First Amendment". The abstract directly references being about EMA v. Brown, but apparently it went to press when it was still called EMA v. Schwarzenegger (that's what the actual PDF says). Definitely could be used to expand the history section and info on important cases. Has a lot of info that the Duke review article didn't cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.182.152 ( talk) 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
To the IP that removed the quote: first, be aware that we use WP:BRD - that is, you can make a change but if that is reverted, its up to you to discuss it, not those reverting it. Yes, I know there were a couple small things I reverted which I was going to go back and reinsert, but the quote restoration was needed.
That said, the removal of the quote is unwarranted. This is a major case for the video game industry that basically certifies the medium as a form of art like movies and books. The quote from the Scalia decision that was in a block quote was significant in that it identifies that states cannot make a law just because the medium may have social harm, a fight video games have had for years. You may claim it is not a new law, which technically is true, but is a strong affirmation that states cannot regulate free speech. -- MASEM ( t) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The third paragraph "Though the ruling was seen as a victory..." strikes me as completely speculative and I'm not sure why it exists. Wikipedia has a policy against speculative content, and this seems overly opinionated considering it brings up the alleged double standard of societal attitudes towards sex and violence. There aren't even any verifiable sources. Especially considering this is touched on in the responses to the verdict, I'm not sure what the purpose is, and it seems to call the neutrality of the article into question. -OmegaflareX — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaflareX ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does it says "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed", while both Ninth Circuit Court and Supreme Courts held that the act is unconstitutional? vvv t 07:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red Phoenix ( talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This article came up for review at WP:GAN. After reading through it thoroughly, I'm placing the article on hold for a couple of minor issues to be tweaked. Before I begin with a step-by-step list here, I would like to begin by commending the editors of this article for a job well done. It reads very well, it is cited very well, and I believe it is likely a future FA candidate.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 13:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph reads:
California Senator Leland Yee introduced the original law in 2005, believing a connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children, and sought to regulate the voluntary video game industry ratings review system, the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Though similar laws were passed in other States, they were challenged by video game industry groups like the Entertainment Software Association, and defeated in lower courts. The California law was similarly blocked and ruled unconstitutional in lower courts, but then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to take the case to the Supreme Court in 2009, which the Court accepted. Oral arguments were heard in November 2010, with the decision announced in June 2011.
Masem, I don't think the lead section needs to reflect the body proportionately. There's nothing inappropriate about leaving out a large number of relatively minor background facts that appear in the body. As the first sentence indicates, the article is about the Supreme Court case, not about the lower courts. I believe the only reason the lower courts get so much real estate in the article is because those sections were developed before the Supreme Court appeal was decided. Look at other articles about Supreme Court cases and you won't see any where such material gets the largest paragraph in the lead section. A decent analog is NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case). You'll see that the legislative history and the lower court proceedings, which were extensive, are relegated to a "Background" section and aren't even mentioned in the lead. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 01:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying the lead sections of all the other SCOTUS cases (such as NFIB v. Sebelius) are inappropriate? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:FA#Law there are only five FAs about U.S. Supreme Court cases:
Even looking at the non-U.S. cases (which aren't properly analogous) I can't find a single one that has nearly as much material in the lead about legislative history and/or proceedings below as our article. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If your concern is about the length of the lead, then in my view we could include a bit about the reaction from the proponents of the bill. That viewpoint is arguably excluded in favor or viewpoints from within the gaming industry. Other than that I think our bases are pretty well covered. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think your concern is alleviated by the fact that WP:LEAD says the material should reflect its "relative importance to the subject" and summarize its "most important points." Along these lines I made some further changes to reflect what seems to be most notable. Now that I've given the lead careful scrutiny I think an additional paragraph may be warranted explaining the reasoning for the court's decision. In particular this sentence from the body seems quite notable: "The Court's decision also determined that from the evidence, there was no 'compelling' link between violent video games and its effects on children." Want to take a crack? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to call this case "landmark" then we should have a reliable secondary source stating that it's landmark. If anyone finds one please post it here or cite it in the article. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "child protection groups" really the most accurate label in this sentence: "The ruling was seen as a significant victory for the video game industry and a defeat for child protection groups." (relevant edits by User:DrFleischman): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n&diff=prev&oldid=587191541
I'm sure it applies to some child protection groups, but certainly not all. I'm having trouble thinking of a neutral sounding label for the defeated group here, but the article doesn't have one now. Maybe this sentence should be removed. It doesn't really add any information that's not obvious from context, and is framed basically as "evil corporations vs children".
...dissimilar username... ( talk) 04:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/Norris_Final_81_116.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 17, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 October 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It makes no sense. I don't see a point in merging the two separate court cases, one before the Supreme Court of the State of California and the other before the US Supreme Court. It makes no sense. -- Rastko Pocesta ( talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I added the external link to this article that was just published in the Northwestern Interdisciplinary Law Review called "Electronic Games & the First Amendment". The abstract directly references being about EMA v. Brown, but apparently it went to press when it was still called EMA v. Schwarzenegger (that's what the actual PDF says). Definitely could be used to expand the history section and info on important cases. Has a lot of info that the Duke review article didn't cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.182.152 ( talk) 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
To the IP that removed the quote: first, be aware that we use WP:BRD - that is, you can make a change but if that is reverted, its up to you to discuss it, not those reverting it. Yes, I know there were a couple small things I reverted which I was going to go back and reinsert, but the quote restoration was needed.
That said, the removal of the quote is unwarranted. This is a major case for the video game industry that basically certifies the medium as a form of art like movies and books. The quote from the Scalia decision that was in a block quote was significant in that it identifies that states cannot make a law just because the medium may have social harm, a fight video games have had for years. You may claim it is not a new law, which technically is true, but is a strong affirmation that states cannot regulate free speech. -- MASEM ( t) 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The third paragraph "Though the ruling was seen as a victory..." strikes me as completely speculative and I'm not sure why it exists. Wikipedia has a policy against speculative content, and this seems overly opinionated considering it brings up the alleged double standard of societal attitudes towards sex and violence. There aren't even any verifiable sources. Especially considering this is touched on in the responses to the verdict, I'm not sure what the purpose is, and it seems to call the neutrality of the article into question. -OmegaflareX — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaflareX ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why does it says "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed", while both Ninth Circuit Court and Supreme Courts held that the act is unconstitutional? vvv t 07:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Red Phoenix ( talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This article came up for review at WP:GAN. After reading through it thoroughly, I'm placing the article on hold for a couple of minor issues to be tweaked. Before I begin with a step-by-step list here, I would like to begin by commending the editors of this article for a job well done. It reads very well, it is cited very well, and I believe it is likely a future FA candidate.
Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 13:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph reads:
California Senator Leland Yee introduced the original law in 2005, believing a connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior in children, and sought to regulate the voluntary video game industry ratings review system, the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Though similar laws were passed in other States, they were challenged by video game industry groups like the Entertainment Software Association, and defeated in lower courts. The California law was similarly blocked and ruled unconstitutional in lower courts, but then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to take the case to the Supreme Court in 2009, which the Court accepted. Oral arguments were heard in November 2010, with the decision announced in June 2011.
Masem, I don't think the lead section needs to reflect the body proportionately. There's nothing inappropriate about leaving out a large number of relatively minor background facts that appear in the body. As the first sentence indicates, the article is about the Supreme Court case, not about the lower courts. I believe the only reason the lower courts get so much real estate in the article is because those sections were developed before the Supreme Court appeal was decided. Look at other articles about Supreme Court cases and you won't see any where such material gets the largest paragraph in the lead section. A decent analog is NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case). You'll see that the legislative history and the lower court proceedings, which were extensive, are relegated to a "Background" section and aren't even mentioned in the lead. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 01:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying the lead sections of all the other SCOTUS cases (such as NFIB v. Sebelius) are inappropriate? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:FA#Law there are only five FAs about U.S. Supreme Court cases:
Even looking at the non-U.S. cases (which aren't properly analogous) I can't find a single one that has nearly as much material in the lead about legislative history and/or proceedings below as our article. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If your concern is about the length of the lead, then in my view we could include a bit about the reaction from the proponents of the bill. That viewpoint is arguably excluded in favor or viewpoints from within the gaming industry. Other than that I think our bases are pretty well covered. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think your concern is alleviated by the fact that WP:LEAD says the material should reflect its "relative importance to the subject" and summarize its "most important points." Along these lines I made some further changes to reflect what seems to be most notable. Now that I've given the lead careful scrutiny I think an additional paragraph may be warranted explaining the reasoning for the court's decision. In particular this sentence from the body seems quite notable: "The Court's decision also determined that from the evidence, there was no 'compelling' link between violent video games and its effects on children." Want to take a crack? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to call this case "landmark" then we should have a reliable secondary source stating that it's landmark. If anyone finds one please post it here or cite it in the article. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "child protection groups" really the most accurate label in this sentence: "The ruling was seen as a significant victory for the video game industry and a defeat for child protection groups." (relevant edits by User:DrFleischman): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n&diff=prev&oldid=587191541
I'm sure it applies to some child protection groups, but certainly not all. I'm having trouble thinking of a neutral sounding label for the defeated group here, but the article doesn't have one now. Maybe this sentence should be removed. It doesn't really add any information that's not obvious from context, and is framed basically as "evil corporations vs children".
...dissimilar username... ( talk) 04:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/Norris_Final_81_116.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)