Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

move

{{movereq|Jack Thompson (activist)}} Jack Thompson (attorney) → Jack Thompson (activist) — It has been suggested that the page be moved to indicate that Mr. Thompson is no longer an attorney as he has been disbarred, but he continues to act as an activist in these matters. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been proposed over and over, and it's been shot down every time based on the fact that Thompson used his position as an attorney to become notable; similarly, we don't rename articles when their subjects have changed what they are currently famous for.
However, I do think that "activist" is pretty accurate, and covers both pre- and post-disbarment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I didn't know that, just starting watching this page, but there is at least one previous discussion which may be relevant Talk:Jack_Thompson_(attorney)/Archive_14#Post-disbarment_re-titling_of_page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any real objection to this move, so I'm going to go ahead and move it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

just wondering if someone could put this on thew page: it was reported that jack said that bully was a "school murder simulator" evan though there was no murder, blood or death in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.251.179 (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

impartiality

Even though this guy seems to be universally hated, this article should read from an objective viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.202.52 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should. If you could identify which parts you feel are not objective that would be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If only there were someone to write this article impartially. I think theres him on his own side, then everyone else hahaha 69.19.255.168 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think one definite piece of bias *towards* Thompson is in the 'Grand Theft Auto' section: "Dustin Lynch, 16, who was charged with aggravated murder in the slaying of JoLynn Mishne". "Slaying" is a loaded word at the best of times, and I really don't see why it's been used alongside "aggravated murder"; that's a redundant expression if ever I saw one Crankytoad (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Swapped the wording to make it a little more neutral. - Tainted Conformity ^SCREAM 13:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack Thompson sues facebook

Wacko Jacko is up to his old tricks, new broke on slashdot earlier that he's suing facebook for all the hate sites of him they didnt take down. http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/320607 - 121.44.190.22 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the article and have updated the wikipedia page accordingly. --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also changed the name of this section, as it's not at all neutral to say the least! ;) --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Gamepolitics is considered a reliable source, but according to one of their stories, an email exchange between Jack Thompson and Andrew Eisen revealed that Thompson did not use Facebook's report feature, and is basing his suit off of their lack of response to three faxes sent to their CEO. http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/10/01/one-mouse-click-later-thompson-fb-group-removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.162.192 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been getting my news there for years, i can say that Gamepolitics is definitely a reliable source. Any news on gamepolitics about Thompson is from Thompson directly. He contacts Gamepolitics weather they like it or not.SeanBrockest (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was decided a long time ago somewhere in the archives that gamepolitics was not a reliable source. I contest that on the grounds that it's owned by the ECA which is a professional organization and they haven't been shown to lie before.Father Time89 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to thompson, gamepolitics is as reliable as it gets. SeanBrockest (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that Jack actually filed the lawsuit since he's been disbarred and at one point had to have anything he sent to the court co-signed by a lawyer. Is there any evidence that this lawsuit was actually filed aside from Jack's claims? Because of his history I think the text should be changed to "claimed to have filed a lawsuit."Jccalhoun (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A disbarred lawyer can still hire another lawyer, I'm sure he'd have no trouble finding someone willing to take his money. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is true but Thompson has a history of saying things and then not doing them. I really doubt that he actually did file the lawsuit or hired someone to file it. Unless there is evidence aside from Thompson himself claiming he did then I am skeptical that he actually did file the lawsuit. Jccalhoun (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What this comes down to is the sources. this one [1] says clearly that he did in fact file a lawsuit. So, do we trust them as a source, or do they not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be_bold SeanBrockest (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Won any?

Well i was wondering has Jack Thompson ever actually won any cases? --88.91.156.243 (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has. Some are detailed in this article SeanBrockest (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular activist cases? No, he did win a few against the radio stations over howard stern, and a few against a rock band (The earlier work) but they were later overturned on appeals. So technically he hasn't succeeded in any main cases he's constantly harping on about - 15.195.201.87 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please proofread

"As an attorney, Thompson focussed his legal efforts against what he perceives as obscenity in modern culture."

Second line into the article there's already an error. Focussed should be focused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.173.113 (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks for spotting it! Ravensfire (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

regarding popups

recently a revision was made, and the reviser claimed the edit was "using popups". That's not a popup. Maybe check your browser, but it did not "pop up" anything for me, a new tab did not open, no Javascript was linked for an in-site popup, nor did my popup blocker attempt to stop anything. That just was not a popup in any way that i can tell SeanBrockest (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It refers to the tool used to make the edit. See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Reach Out to the Truth 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OOOOOH, I see now. Thanks ROttT. Okay then, I guess ignore that. I guess what I need to ask now is, if not because you don't like popups, why then did you revert the edit? It contained a link to the article being discussed. Seems a logical link to me. SeanBrockest (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction request

In the section "Activism and lobbying", the following needs to be changed: "and the state was ordered to pay the defense's attorney fees" to "and the state was ordered to pay the plaintiff's legal fees". Entertainment_Software_Association_v._Foti has this stated correctly. RamenFueled (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I finally managed to amass 10 edits, so that I could make the correction myself. RamenFueled (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Thompson Sued Wikipedia

This should be talked about.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about we start the conversation by verifying that such a thing actually happened. I know he sued Facebook, but I never heard of any Wikipedia lawsuit. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to browse the archives, do a search of "sue wikipedia" in the archives, you should find all that you need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=40194876&oldid=40192491 this was his user account, and ha ha blocked for legal threats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackthompson http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/228672.html http://www.gamebump.com/go/jack_thompson__vandalizes_own_wikipedia_article

He also wrote a letter to wikipedia, I'm sure that someone has a copy. An admin maybe.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, none of that is verification of anything, per our reliable sourcing policy. All we know from that is that someone claiming to be Jack Thompson threatened to sue Wikipedia and was rightly blocked as a result. Given that people are blocked all the time for making hollow legal threats it hardly merits mentioning in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I argee. Even if this was him all it means that he once threatened to sue over 4 years ago. If he actually did sue that may have worth mentioning but an old apearently empty threat is not. (I assumne it is empty because I assume there would have been more recent coverage if the suit actually happened)--76.66.188.244 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I suggest that we must indeed include this incident, because it speaks to our (Wp's) credibility as a source. Imagine if you will, some hysteric proclaiming, "Aha! Wp is biased against him, because they libeled him and he threatened to sue!" The best defense, in the court of public opinion, is a small section detailing what really happened (and didn't), with unimpeachable references. We may need to say things like, "On date, an account was opened, by a user representing himself as Thompson. (Exact details are suppressed, per privacy policy.) ..." Yeah, it's extra work for our overworked staff, but I really think it's necessary. --LCE(LCE talk contribs) 09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pixelante redirect?

Pixelante redirects to this article, but I find no reference to that in the current version. Would someone more knowledgeable about redirects and/or the subject please take a look? --LCE(LCE talk contribs) 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was made into a redirect as a result of an WP:AFD discussion in 07. Since there is no content related to this term, I've gone ahead and nominated the redirect for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 25. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the action -- it stirred up some useful information; Wp's human resources are awesome! -- but I suggest that the old article be resurrected and scavenged (especially for references!) to yield a short section, and point the redirect at that. Lots of people coin words, but few neologisms make it "out there" (and 10K Google hits suggest that it is indeed out there). In some sense that is a positive achievement, and the article is kind of short on those. Nailing down coinage is a useful and encyclopedic kind of thing to do. --LCE(LCE talk contribs) 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason the previous article was redirected was because it did not have any good sources. This [2] was the reference attached, it mentions the term without clearly defining it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Your reference to kombo.com gives a date (2005-10-20) when they received a statement from Thompson which used the term. Urban Dictionary provides a couple of definitions, plus quotes from what look like emails from Thompson (but they are unattributed). Kombo (Advanced Media Network) looks RS to me; Urban Dictionary . . . Thompson's statement or emails would be preferable sources. I'll hunt some, but I am no researcher. Help welcome. Stay tuned.

BTW, having guessed at the meaning and gotten it exactly backwards, I'm really convinced that we should say something about it. LCE(LCE talk contribs) 01:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if Kombo is an RS or not, but it barely mentions the term anyway. What we need is an source with more than a passing mention of the term, which clearly defines it's meaning. I'm afraid Urban Dictionary is generated by whatever random users happen to add a definition, so it definitely is not considered reliable, although in this case I do think they've correctly pegged the meaning of this term. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What does pixelante even mean? If it is redirected here, it should at the very least appear once in the article, which it does not. (Or if it does, Internet Explorer's word search engine really sucks...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.254.2 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sims

Thompson is also known to have filed suits against Electronic Arts concerning The Sims series of games, stating that it's ability to be modified could potentially turn the game into a "virtual practice ground for child molesters". I think it would be an important addition to the video game section of the article, but I don't know the proper reference formats, apparently. Someone should tackle that. -173.25.56.109 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything Jack doesn't hate!?!? Rockstar, Facebook, EA..... 88.193.138.127 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

widely hated

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/jack-thompson-medal-of-honor-taliban-opposing-force-moh,news-8216.html

this is one of many insults from the guy against the gaming community, if you don't agree that this should be on his profile then ask me how many people will get offended by this?--Ronnie42 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what you are asking. How many people would be offended by the Taliban in a MOH game or how many people would be offended by Thompson telling gamers to go to Hell? Either way it does not seem to have any bearing on whether it should be included in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

i was being general about the guy since i don't know anyone that thinks the guy who has done anything good, instead lies about how hes doing for us but instead is doing the opposite effect, offending a lot of people, also what i'm saying is that the thompson guy seems to hate gamers a lot, most gamers hate him because he tries to ban anything he can find, even made a few sick jokes with developers plus i have lost track of how many hate groups there are dedicated to him--Ronnie42 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly well documented in the article that there is a long running animosity between Mr. Thompson and the gamer community. Do you have any specific proposals on how to improve the article, or are you just venting here? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)