Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)

Archives
July – Oct. 2005 August – Oct. 2005 August – Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 Oct. 2005 (continued) Feb. 2006 Feb. – March 2006 March 2006 March 2006 (continued) March – May 2006 May 2006 October 2006

Page Archived 10/24/06

Issues:

1. Disconnect between editors on whether REPUTABLE gaming sources such as GameSpot and the like qualify under WP:RS. Currently they are not allowed, even if Thompson himself confirms it in those articles. Try to get a consensus on this.

2.Constant target for anonymous vandals, slow, long term. maybe a candidate for Semi-Protection?

3.Minor visual editing to make the page read better (paragraphs, etcetera)

I believe the page needs protection, from both vandals and from a few particular (legitimate) users who are a little overzealous in cutting information out. --PeanutCheeseBar 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with FULL protection, I do think Semi-Protection is a way to go. Perhaps we can file a WP:RfC and get a consensus on the WP:RS issue. I do understand where the other side is coming from, after all, this page has gone through WP:OFFICE once, and to avoid liability to a point. However, I do believe that the fact that Thompson himself confirms that it's real via email discussion (copied out to several other media sources) qualifies it. SirFozzie 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have clarified; I meant semi-protection, not full. Also, in terms of the past liability of Wikipedia, Thompson has threatened action towards Wikipedia because of information posted by the users, cited by outside linked sources. Though Thompson threatened Wikipedia, he did not threaten the sites that Wikipedia linked to, which were the basis for the information posted by the users. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request at WP:RFPP to Semi-protect the page. SirFozzie 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Semi Protected

Thanks to NishiKid64 for semi-protecting the page, which means we'll see a lot less vandalism on the page. Hopefully we can make the article look better while it's under protection. SirFozzie 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone should unlock the page. The asshole deserves to have shit spread about him at his own expense. You cannot protect his reputation from us. Gonzo all the way, baby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.67.229 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is only protected against anonymous edits. If you want to make changes, you can create an account. Also, if you even took the time to read the article, you would have noticed that your type of vandalism is fully redundant to other content in the article. --Sigma 7 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.. WP is WP:NOT a place for folks who want to go gonzo on folks. Despite my feelings about Jack Thompson (probably shared by a good majority of the folks who have worked with or read about Jack), Wikipedia's guiding point is WP:NPOV. We don't need to make a case about the guy. The guy's own words and actions do it for us. All we have to do is report it, in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW fashion. Not our fault he does what he does. SirFozzie 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Though...true objectivity is never possible, especially with a douchebag like him. You either agree with what he's doing, or disagree, and however you view it, it's not possible to NOT spin the facts (at least a little.) At least the (extreme) majority of the country agrees he's a worthless asshat, and hopefully he'll go away soon. In the meantime, we'll TRY to keep the facts separate from our own prejudices, and just be proud to live in a country that even lets closet-homosexuals like him thrive!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckerist (talk • contribs)

Good point. He is a very polarizing figure.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Show Cause Order

Yup, we're back to this one: Considering Jack has now replied to the Show Cause order, and a hearing could be held today (see [this page for his reply to the request to the show cause order] Surely the man himself qualifies for WP:RS SirFozzie 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:RfC on the article. If you're coming here from the RfC, it's also on archive 12

There was some discussion about a month ago about using gaming sites as sources for legal documents, and I don't think we really decided anything. It would be best, of course, if someone personally had access to the documents. Even then, there's the question of notability. Regardless, I think at this point we can wait and see if anything actually happens. --Maxamegalon2000 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?7663 is the first non-gaming publication to mention the Show Cause order although it is in a columns about various things in the video game world. SirFozzie 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's OK that it's a video game column, but it's a college paper that I know doesn't do a good job with fact checking. I read an article of theirs about the newest Weird Al album, and I was this close to writing a complaint to them about the startling inaccuracies it contained. Again, at this point we can probably wait for something notable to actually happen first. --Maxamegalon2000 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Max, we could be waiting for a long time for something notable to happen AND for it to be reported in an unbiased manner on a mainstream news site (as most of the stories on Thompson make him out to be a champion to parents); that's part of my argument why we need to open up our horizons in terms of the sources we select, be they from gaming sites or otherwise. Just because there's inaccuracies in one article on that site, does not mean that you need to strike down every article as unreliable. Sometimes I think Max is secretly a Thompson fan... --PeanutCheeseBar 11:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By "open up our horizons" you mean lower our standards. No thank you. There are more than just inaccuracies in one article, there are inaccuracies in the very article in question. Take, for example, the following sentence: "In the event that Thompson should be held in contempt of court, a substantial fine and imprisonment of several months would be levied upon Thompson." That sentence is wrong, and the error symptomatic of the lack of understanding with which the article was written. The author clearly doesn't know the consequences in advance, even if Thompson did get found in contempt, and in most places jail time would be out of the question for this situation. It's entirely speculative, both about the basis for the motion and the potential consequences, just like the other sources (a few of those did a little better at signalling that they were speculating - "it appears" or "this is all we know"). These problems are exactly why we insist on reputable mainstream sources. --Michael Snow 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because we were hamstrung by the decision on WP:RS to exclude 95% of the sources from our source. Anything that accurately portrayed it we couldn't use because "it was on a gaming website". For example. GameSpot, no one-man blog, had everything right, INCLUDING CONFIRMATION FROM THOMPSON HIMSELF that such a request had been filed, and we couldn't use it. SirFozzie 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

GameSpot had everything right? Don't make me laugh. Their story doesn't even manage to be consistent with itself. Blank Rome is "asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court for his comments to Judge Friedman" vs. "no contempt charges have yet been leveled at Thompson." All of the reports I've seen so far on gaming-related websites are largely speculative and frequently contradictory (about virtually every aspect of the situation: whether he's in contempt, what the basis would be for finding contempt, and what the penalties could be). It's a perfect illustration of why, as a general matter, those sources should be avoided. --Michael Snow 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's exactly right, you mean. That's because Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a PROPOSED ORDER for the judge for Thompson to Show Cause on why he should not be held in contempt. That was why there was a hearing on the Proposed Order yesterday, where the judge in the case recused himself from the case due to the fact that the judge himself was filing a complaint with the Florida Bar. So YES, Blank Rome/Take Two was asking that Thompson be held in contempt of court, but no finding of contempt of court had been entered. SirFozzie 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They didn't say entered, they said leveled. --Michael Snow 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because if the Judge denied the proposed order, they never existed. It was a hypothetical. SirFozzie 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Michael, given your self-admitted lack of experience in journalism, I doubt that you're in a much better position to make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions than GameSpot or any other site. Your insistence on using only mainstream sources not only hamstrings Wikipedia in terms of resources, but also in terms of credibility and respectability; after all, mainstream news sources rely on third-party or lesser news sources for some of their information, and with proper research, they typically USE them. Even blogs by virtual "nobodies" are used as sources, by your so-called mainstream media. As I have said in the past, information from gaming sites is allowable in the event that they link to their sources or proof of the story (and given how much gamers just HATE Thompson, many welcome the chance to find legitimate proof of his treachery). After all, the source of information, regardless of whether or not you find it via Google or link to it via a gaming site, still exists; finding it without the aid of a gaming site is simply cutting out the middleman. Add to that the fact that Thompson himself confirms some of this information (as SirFozzie so astutely pointed out), and that just gives further reasoning that gaming sites can be used. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your points are valid for the most part but beating up Michael isn't the way to go as your criticisms apply to Wikipedia in general and not just this article. It's a known limitation of Wikipedia's policies. They tend to work rather well for most subjects but for a minority, including current events not reported by the mainstream press or academic publications, they do not work well. --ElKevbo 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What sources of the information are you talking about, then, PeanutCheeseBar? I haven't seen any site, gaming or otherwise, link to, say, the actual motion or proposed order, or any court ruling. If we had those, we might be able to use them. Instead they mostly link to each other, in typical echo chamber fashion.

It would appear that you've glanced at my user page, in an attempt to convert this into an argument about people rather than sources (a tactic you've already adopted before). Perhaps you should read it more carefully, in order to get a hint of why I might be in a position to "make commentary on the legal consequences of Thompson's actions".

As for the issues of journalistic practice, I may not have that much experience with it, but I do have some understanding of how it works. Reputable news reporters may sometimes learn about things from inferior sources, but the point of the process you describe is that they check their facts, so that they're not relying on those sources, they know the information for themselves. Your argument boils down to saying they get some of their facts right, so we should use whatever they say, without worrying about whether it's right or wrong. --Michael Snow 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, my criticisms of Wikipedia go beyond this article, though that is not the issue at hand; this article is. That aside, I am glad you understand my points. Unfortunately, Michael does not understand my points; from what he is posting, he apparently has not read the most recent archive with subject matter concerning reliable sources. In addition, he has also not read and fully comprehended my last post; if he had, he would have realized that I stated that mainstream media may use information after having done research on the information, or found some kind of proof. After all, when information is passed down the line by multiple people, facts are bound to be changed or misrepresented, justifying the need to do further research; nowhere did I state that news should be constructed in a piecemeal fashion, as you've attempted to twist my argument into sounding. Furthermore, no matter what kind of "lawyer training" you have, I am fairly certain it is not all-encompassing, and unless you do the subsequent research based on the case, laws of the state, and so on, it does not necessarily make you a reliable or qualified person to speak on matters of litigation (as much as I'm sure he'd like to make himself out to be).

Beyond that, the mainsteam media is also subject to gross bias, and people aren't entirely ignorant of that fact; this is the reason why CNN is construed to have a Liberal bias, and FoxNews a Conservative bias. As I was attempting to iterate in a previous statement, the mainstream media is also guilty of not checking all its facts (or even worse, being ignorant of factual inconsistencies) before releasing news to the people. This is partially the reason why Thompson has made himself out to be a hero, because the media won't report on the extreme statements and legal threats he's made, and people don't know any better because they don't do any additional research. The worst part of it all is that he places the blame on people who play games, people who may them, and people who sell them, but NOT the parents who buy them. Why? Parents don't want to take responsibility for the actions their children take. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've read the archives alright. I'll admit to not understanding your point, seeing as how it seems to be an argument that the sources currently being offered are reliable. As I've already pointed to instances of contradictory statements and flawed understanding about the legal procedure, I don't know how this makes any sense. I also don't see the point of rambling about generalized bias in the mainstream media - if you've got any reason to think any source currently in use is inaccurate or biased about Jack Thompson, by all means explain why and we'll consider removing it. --Michael Snow 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what my argument is about at all; I've already broken it down into much simpler terms both in this discussion and in the archive. If you cannot understand it at this point, then there is little more I can do; I would have hoped that your "lawyer training" would have enabled you to understand my argument a little bit better, regardless of how simple I tried to make it. That aside, my "rambling" must be entirely lost on you, and that's all the more reason why you're not the best person to pass judgment, especially when some of the other people here understand my point just fine. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to Florida's case system online?

We can sidestep the WP:RS discussion if we confirm that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a proposed Show Cause order to the judge.. after all, if we just report that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a Show Cause order (as I put in, with no POV Leanings earlier in the article), and the judge deferred, as he had recused himself from the case due to partiality (due to the Florida Bar complaint), that should satisfy both WP:RS AND WP:NPOV, Correct? SirFozzie 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete his article altogether

I hate this guy. I don't understand why he can't just leave us gamers alone and go mind his own business. I even bought the toilet paper with his name printed on it on the internet! If he dosen't like the video game industry, that's his own problem, but he shouldn't ruin millions of other gamers time by starting these stupid petitions and a whole bunch of other legal crap just because he dosen't like the game. He is not worthy of gracing Wikipedia with his poisonous presence.

Unfortunately, as much as I wish the world could ignore him (I call him Whacko Jacko on a regular basis), he does definitely fall under WP:N, and Wikipedia is NOT only for the good folks in the world, and deserves an article. SirFozzie 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We're certainly not going to delete the article on the Holocaust, so why would we delete an article on an ineffectual notable lawyer?--Vercalos 20:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no chance that this would get enough support on an AFD for a deletion. --65.95.16.170 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, wikipedia has an obligation to document his gradual descent into madness and eventual downfall as he is disgraced, disbarred and dissapears in oblivion. VTNC 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with VTNC; for the sake of history and for the sake of taking a stand against Thompson's incessant bullying, we need to document anything that happens with Thompson. --PeanutCheeseBar 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Our personal reservations aside, we must utilize Wikipedia as the information tool that it is and help others learn about his activities. People can't stop or help discredit him without knowledge of his infamy. I am one of the people who has benefited from this article, and there are surely many others out there. Please keep up the good work. AgencySEA 10:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the guy is actually a troll. He's not being particularly offensive or annoying(Unless you happen to be Jack Thompson).--Vercalos 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the guy is a troll either; however, if he really wanted the article to be deleted, he will need better justification than what he has posted. --PeanutCheeseBar 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that he is a poisonous scumbag who's touch with reality is somewhat questionable, but he is (unfortunely) worth of documenting; just wish wiki could have an 'official' opinion. - Doug 01:24 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Section summaries?

It's rather hard to read through the litigation section, could we break it down into cases with sub-headers: James v. Meow Media (Paducah), Lynch, Tennessee, Devin Moore, Best Buy "sting", Bully lawsuits, and Cody Posey? Or even move the case files to new wiki entries, such as with James v. Meow Media? Jabrwock 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With the size of the article, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but how many articles do we want? I know of one with his involvement in the Jacob Robida situation. SirFozzie 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is in my opinion too big. I think all the video game stuff should be placed in a seperate article, and a summary included here instead. Andersa 08:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not yet in contempt, but complaint filed

I know I know, not reliable. But it's a heads up. Judge Friedman reclused himself from ruling whether JT was in contempt, apparently due to the fact that he had filed his own Florida Bar complaint against JT. JT grabbed by 4 police officers when he refuses to stop holding up a large posterboard in court. Destructoid will have the videotape of the event posted later. Presumably Take Two will ask the next judge to continue with the contempt ruling. Jabrwock 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the video: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson. It also seems that Jack Thompson is a Mortal Kombat: Armageddon fighter as well. Boy, he sure seems to get around these days. :P (Oh, and apparently Jack is also demanding that Midway cease and desist because of this.) MarphyBlack 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section about his actions in the case Friedman is presiding over. It should also list his actions as outlined by the court reporter and witnesses. - 59.167.30.29 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack's background: Been in jail

At the end of the following article: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-part-deux-post-hearing-update

It is stated in a conversation between dtoid.com's Niero and Jack Thompson about how he felt in the courtroom, the following:

Niero: “So what was going through your head when those four officers were summoned into the courtroom for you?”
Jack: “I thought about when I was in college … I’ve been to jail before briefly …”

Over a parking infraction on campus. Hardly worth a mention... Jabrwock 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just a way to show he's not fully contempted. Possible WP:NPOV, though, but who cares?142.58.101.27 20:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hidden courtroom video

This video was posted on the main article, removed, re-added by myself, then removed again; though some might argue that it is biased simply because of the person recording the video (or even the site that the video is linked from), it provides a look at Jack Thompson when he believes that the general public cannot see him, and thus it cannot really be spun by any media organization unless it is edited. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the video is useful. There are so many totally outrageous statements by Thompson in the article it becomes hard to believe that they are not being taken out of context or edited to make him look bad. The video is documentary proof of his bizarre behavior. If there is a better/ more NPOV way to present the video, that would be cool. I'd also like to hear the arguments against posting it. I'll refrain from adding it as long as the talk page is active and there is no consensus.Vegasjon 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the gaming site thing dq's it again to others. I would support it, but let's see... SirFozzie 20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that the fact it came from a gaming site is irrelevant, especially since the video was made by someone who would have a bias against Thompson. However, one can hardly argue that the video itself is biased when it is a direct recording of Thompson's own actions and words; the viewers can see for themselves what Thompson says and does, and it's fairly difficult to twist any of that around, short of editing the video. I agree with Vegasjon that something like this is useful in that it shows Thompson's statements aren't taken out of context, and it would be a great counter-balance to the lack of negative press that Thompson receives from the mainstream media. --PeanutCheeseBar 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't view the video right now, but perhaps trim the non-NPOV parts off/host it somewhere NPOV/etc? If it's him saying stuff, then it's very useful, but if people are worried about NPOV, then just remove the non-NPOV stuff. -Ryanbomber 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ack! NO! Wikipedia editors editing external sources to bring them into conformance with our own views of NPOV? Terrible idea. External sources are allowed to be POV. Further, any Wikipedia editor editing external sources on these grounds raises serious questions about editorial integrity and independence. Bad idea all around. Either we include it as a source/external link/etc. or we don't. --ElKevbo 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, that wasn't thought out to well. The wording makes me sound like I want to butcher the thing. I'm just saying that if the intro is ultra-biased, we cut it out (and source the original, obviously.) It would probabally be more graceful if, instead of tinkering with the video, we just quote him from it. I think it would be best to just quote the video in it's entirety, but I guess people like being ultra-draconic about NPOV, so we can't have nice things like that. Go wiki. -Ryanbomber 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would modify their website or its content to be more Wiki-friendly; Wikipedia isn't the best role model, considering all the double-standards that it embraces. That aside, it doesn't matter where the video is sourced from, since most websites are POV in some way; given this, I don't see where it should be an issue to post this video. I'm certainly not seeing any reasonable "against" argument. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to watching the video, and I think we shouldn't "really" link it, mostly because the audio is such terrible quality. It'd be easier to just quote from it and cite it - I don't think we should showcase the thing. -Ryanbomber 11:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How? People will want to know the source of the video to verify the quotes, even if the quality of it is terrible. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Above is proof I shouldn't edit the wiki when I'm half asleep. I think I meant to say "don't give it an entire section to itself, but quote it and cite the quotes using the link." Maybe it'll work better on wikiquote. -Ryanbomber 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Over a month has passed since this was originally posted, an I haven't seen much objection or grounds for not posting the video. If I don't see any reasonable objections in the next few days, I'll repost the video. PeanutCheeseBar 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's appropriate to include as an External link. I don't think we should link to the video merely because it exists. If its notability were established then that would be different. Even in that case I would encourage you to use the video or discussion of it as a reference and not as an External link. --ElKevbo 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How is not appropriate and not notable? Allegations of bias for or against the man concerning this article are thrown around frequently, and short of this video, there really is no other "live" proof that he is as off-the-wall as people have described him. It's certainly notable due to the fact that there is no other footage like this around, and also due to the fact that he is not aware he is being filmed, so he isn't acting unnaturally or hamming it up for the camera. I'm sorry, but failure to include this would not only be a blow to the article itself, but to Wikipedia's credibility. PeanutCheeseBar 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I haven't really seen any decent reasoning as for the video not to be reposted in the few months since I opened this topic, I am going to repost it. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's borderline argumentum ad nauseam. I still think it shouldn't be posted if for no other reason then terrible quality. -Ryanbomber 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, someone could cut out the intro to the video (as it serves no constructive purpose), but the rest, though not of the greatest quality, is still understandable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Didn't we already have the discussion (back when I was a wee little wikipedian who didn't know any better) to clip it, with the result being "don't do it?" Also, you may be able to understand it, but I sure can't. -Ryanbomber 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup - only a few months ago, in fact (scroll up a few lines). I'll restate my position: it would be entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, or editors acting on behalf of Wikipedia, to edit a source. I think it's very dangerous territory for us to wander blithely into and we need to leave that to other researcher, reporters, and journalists. I would have less of a problem with an explicit statement in the text next to the external link stating something like "The material of interest begins at 1:40." --ElKevbo 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it is likely better to add a statement rather than edit the video for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the article; it just seems that it might leave a door open for some people to complain that the video is "unprofessional" enough or otherwise to justify exclusion. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

JT accuses Bully of "gay sex"

Letter he sent to retailers I hope some major media prints this. It's rediculous. He tries to argue that a homosexual kissing falls under various statutes in Florida, all of which deal with pornography, and so he can legally ban Bully from being sold to minors. Jabrwock 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reckon it's worth adding to the hilarious Bully section of the article? Sockatume 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

God.. If he's able to pull that off, some uncle's going to get sued for statutory rape for kissing his nephew on the cheek.--Vercalos 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait Gay sex between 15 year olds - dosent that mean he's accusing bully of containing child pornography?

If he does that, he'll lose what little credibility he has left.--Vercalos 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He has credibility???64.12.116.73 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. --Averross 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there is no gay sex. Just kissing. There's also kissing of girls. Gasp, shock, awe. Isn't it odd how he only finds the male stuff bad? 66.222.181.28 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all that odd. Heterosexuality is more socially acceptable than homosexuality, personal opinions aside.--Vercalos 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated the section dealing with Litigation

And broke it down into four sections,

Early Litigation (vs Quake et all)

Thompson V Grand Theft Auto (Maybe should have its own article?)

Thompson V Bully (Maybe should have its own article?)

Miscellaneous Litigation (the Cease and Desist order to Midway, etcetera)

What do you guys think? SirFozzie 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it's easier to read now. That section was too long before, it wasn't clear how it broke down. Jabrwock 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of changing is maybe Jack Thompson vs Rockstar/Take-Two article and linking it to cut down on this article. I think Jack's Personal Crusade against Rockstar is note worthy enough to make a note of, but can it be done in a NPOV article? This way we could just say in the Thompson article that Thompson has been in court against Take-Two and then point them to the appropriate article. --Tollwutig 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So has anyone read the Rolling Stone article yet?

If so, is there anything that should be added to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't got it yet, but will keep an eye out for it now that I know Whacko Jacko's in it ;) SirFozzie 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it quotes him as being a Zappa fan (I guess he just wants to sue the pants off anyone who would provide Zappa to children...). He also apparently still makes a living off medical malpractice suits. Jabrwock 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So he's an ambulance chaser..--Vercalos 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article at B&N. Sad news is that there really isn't anything new except what's already been on GP and on Wikipedia. Same old 2 Live Crew story and about his lawsuits, plus a quote from Doug. The one thing that caught my eye were the last 4-5 paragraphs about his son. Someone at GP already sumed it up. But as a whole I'm not sure if there's anything worth adding to WP.KungFu-tse 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if we're careful we can mention how he makes a living, though we obviously can't call him an "ambulance chaser" unless the article uses the phrase. I think we can add a sentence somewhere. And maybe just mention that he has a son? --Maxamegalon2000 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable to mention that he makes his living as a medical malpractice lawyer. 139.142.43.31 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Include another subhead for activism against shock jocks?

Currently there's brief mention of his involvement with Howard Stern being taken off air in the 'Other Activities' secition. This might be slightly expanded upon (such as exact involvement, others involved, and details such as specific racist comments aired on the HS show that JT reported to the FCC), as well as mention of previous action taken against other shock jocks many years prior to that. That's some interesting background info. Efrafra 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Include more quotes/info to provide greater balance?

Please don't think I'm trying to root for JT in suggesting this. It just seems that the most interest taken in this article is by those who think he's evil/loony and thus has a lot of emotional investment. As Vercalos rightly implied, the Holocaust could invoke violent feelings in people, but the purpose of Wikipedia is supposed to be informative rather than affected by opinion, emotion, or agenda (even in "Controversy" sections).

Since this is a biographical entry, I wonder why there seem to actually be more [negative] quotes made about JT by others than specific details about the various litigations-- the latter of which would make sense to detail more in the light of how they affected courts and the connection with other cases. Not to say this is not a well-written article. While I did see a few quotes from JT himself, there isn't a lot of representation of 'the other side' of the story. Censorship makes everyone get fired up and while I'm definitely not in favor of censoring everything (and thus, the topic makes me antsy) I think that sometimes we get fired up before actually considering the details of a given litigation or the object of the complaint objectively-- perhaps we care more about blocking censorship than considering/examining the individual cases. I'm always amazed when I realize that I've made a hard judgement on something without actually knowing about it. In the same way that JT wasn't smart to denounce the [albeit WEIRD] Left Behind game without actually checking it out first hand, I wonder why I was so quick to think he should've left 2 Live Crew alone until actually stopping to actually objectively consider the lyrics my 11 year old male classmates were yelling at the girls. Just saying--there's more to the value of having this entry than for the reference of seriously annoyed gamers, although that's the most recent issue. JT may be over the top, but a more balanced entry will be of more use to the public. Efrafra 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if the article's unbalanced it is unbalanced FOR Thompson, not against. SirFozzie 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd say it generally makes him look like a fool in the subtlest way possible.. I don't think we have any sources on him doing a single decent thing(other than his video game litigation, which he obviously thinks is right). In all honesty, I find it hard to believe that he's entirely without any redeeming qualities, so I have to wonder if he's ever helped someone without hurting others(IE charity, etc).--Vercalos 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I want to be optimistic about humanity, I have yet to see any sort of redeeming quality or act about Thompson. As for charity, he's not good at it. Feel free to find something and contradict me, though. -Ryanbomber 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, everything he has done to make himself notable enough to end up on Wikipedia has the side effect of making him sound like a raving lunatic.Adam613 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's true that the article may appear subtly biased, there has been a best effort to try to make the article neutral. This is similar to the John C. Turmel article - you can still detect some bias in the article, if you know what to look for. Likewise, you can still find some "positive" information, in the same way you can find positive information in this article. The only difference is the quantity of sourceable stuff that can be found (although these two articles are currently held to different standards). --Sigma 7 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The article makes him look like an idiot because he IS an idiot. As neutral as you can be, you shouldn't distort the facts to make something more "neutral." We're just saying what he's done, we're not giving any opinions (except on Talk, I guess,) and it's up to the reader to decide what they want to decide. It's not our fault if everybody decides he's an idiot because he does stupid things. As much as I hate pulling a Godwin, Hitler's the best example of this. He's NOT a nice person. There's no real way to make him look nice, nor is there any reason to. The facts speak for themselves - we shouldn't have to sugar coat them. -Ryanbomber 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the quotes and details from the litigations can't be printed due to their coming from unverifiable sources, but their inclusion would actually make this entry seem MORE biased, because they illustrate even MORE how much a tool JT can be. From temper tantrum emails, to nearly getting himself arrested in court for acting like a 4-year old, to threatening everyone under the sun who says anything bad about him. Believe me, the contents of this article are the "nice" side of JT... Jabrwock 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryanbomber; you really can't emphasize positive qualities if there are none known or none to be had. It's for reasons like Ryanbomber's and Jabs that I think the courtroom video belongs here, because it is an unbiased look at his true nature. 71.58.194.230 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why was Jack's photo removed? Even if it was a copyrighted image, given that it was being used to illustrate, y'know, what he looks like, and for no other reason, wouldn't that fair CLEARLY under fair use? Fieari 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the fair use criteria prohibits non free images "just to show what a person looks like", because, you know, someone doesn't want people to be seen. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Who knows WHY you can't have photos of living people to show what they look like... Granted, I just skimmed the article, so if there's some way to get a photo of him up, it'd help until he whined enough to get it taken back down. -Ryanbomber 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

GTA advertising a "criminal conspiracy"?

T, under pressure from cops, eyes way to kill vile ad Boston Herald, Nov 21, 2006

Jack Thompson, a Florida-based lawyer who battles violent video games across the country, said the MBTA is prohibited from promoting violent and sexually exploitative material. “It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy,” Thompson wrote to Grabauskas yesterday. “What’s next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?” Jabrwock 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pbth. If this guy really believed that he would have been on the movie front from the minute "Pulp Fiction" was released. 203.131.167.26 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! JT's a genius! I'm calling the bus company as soon as I get home from school! --Averross 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget Uncyclopedia, this stuff is hilarious. 129.21.109.90 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mario Blocks

I'm not entirely sure this could be used a source, so I'm not adding it myself. The April 7 entry mentions Jack Thompson stating his opinion on the lawsuit involving five girls who hung mario blocks around town. In my opinion, somebody more knowing should add this particular incident to the article. 69.130.136.214 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say we probably can't cite a personal website that's video game-related for this article for two reasons: It's a personal site, and the site is video game-related. --Maxamegalon2000 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Quanz isn't a personal website, it's the home of Dinosaur Comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I only meant that as a primary source, the site is not usable as a source here. If it were notable enough to be in the article, it would have been covered by secondary sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what dumbasses. At least it gives me a new level to make for my Jack Thompson video game.--Averross 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Other public commentary

I was just reading through the archive and noticed that some of JBT's more... colorful remarks regarding the Muslim religion had found a decent source (the Sun Sentinel), but were not included in the main article. Now I'll admit to being already pretty biased against Thompson, so please tell me if you think this shouldn't be included, but I thought it might do well in the "Other public commentary" section. Something like, "In an interview on the XXth of XXX, Thompson said the following-". Thoughts? --64.218.89.103 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If sourced properly (and not just shoehorned into the article), I have no problem with it. SirFozzie 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is "Puritanical Intolerance is Scarier Than Stern Himself" by Michael Mayo, in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in April 2004. Thompson is quoted as saying:

"The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people. Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does. ... Islam promotes the killing of innocent people. The Quran requires the infidel, whether Jew or Christian, to be killed. ... That's a core essence of the religion. ... Muhammad was a pirate who killed infidels and who advocated the killing of infidels. Not a nice guy. Osama bin Laden is in keeping with his fine tradition."

I think when we talked about this in the last archive, we agreed that it was an acceptable source, even though the article is a commentary, but we never decided where it would go. In the original article, it came up in a discussion about GTA, but the Islam stuff doesn't seem to fit there. Thoughts? I've just added it as a source for another quote I added to the article. --Maxamegalon2000 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I was thinking it might go well in the "Other public commentary" section. Don't know if that part was around during the previous discussion, but since its here now, I think it would fit there. --64.218.89.101 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add a section "Thompson quotes on Islam" in "Other Public commentary"? SirFozzie 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since noone has said this was a bad idea, and we have a good source on it, I'd ask someone to put it in. I'd do it myself, but I'm both a) at work, and b) lacking a registered username (used to have one, forgot what it was). --64.218.89.102 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide me a link to the article, I'll add it in the morning :) SirFozzie 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to an online copy, but you probably should list the citation as from the Sun-Sentinel, using the information I listed above. I would do it myself if I could figure out where to put it. --Maxamegalon2000 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see it in the article now.. one minute.. SirFozzie 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(bringing it back in).. Thanks for the edit, Maxmagalon2000, It's much better your way SirFozzie 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ABC News Nightline: "The Virtue Vigilante"

Anyone catch Nightline last night? The text article as well as the video is up.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2722827&page=1

KungFu-tse 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw it, but i don't see how well it would relate to the article (almost everything in the video is already in here, i could be wrong). Still, it does provide us with more evidence of his inability to accept anything that hurts him "Studies have shown a decrease in crimes amongst teens", Jack's blatant reply: "That's not true". Prehaps it could be added somewhere into the article about his views on subjects? Inferny 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... (Thompson vs GTA 4)

Made slashdot and a lot of gaming sites, that Thompson sent a [Letter to Bill Gates] about Grand Theft Auto 4 (which apparently won't even be out until October 07), trying to get Microsoft to either MAKE Rockstar pull the title, or do.. something (I refuse to try to think like him, it'd make my head explode).. and requests that Microsoft's lawyers get in touch with him to help prevent GTA IV being sold to minors. Trying to find something about it from something that will pass the WP:RS bar that's been set for this article. That's probably why the article has been hit several times the last couple days, as the kids are riled up. SirFozzie 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What a waste of time not olny has he made threats like this to bill gates before and never followed hrough on them but also I read somewhere that Microsoft paid a HUGE sum of money to get GTA 4 released on the 360 at the same time as the PS3. 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see Thompson try and sue Microsoft; probably end up being counter sued for damages to Bills reputation... but I fear it'll never happened, and that loud-mouth fool will keep misleading, threatening, and gaining publicity for his "good works", i.e. being a moody bugger, unwilling to accept the facts, and braking his word. Sigh. - Doug 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection!

Add this article back to the protected articles. The first edit after it was unprotected was vandalism!--Viridis 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't want to permanently protect pages. Vandalism happens, and as long as we can handle it it's not really a problem. In the two days since it was unprotected, the article was vandalised three times (two times by one user). That's hardly an unstoppable flow of vandalism and no reason to protect the article again. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 03:49

Indeed, everyone would be better served by addressing the vandals themselves rather than protecting this article; not only do we protect literally every other article from being vandalized by the same people, but it also allows for good-faithed newbies to still contribute to this article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is nothing. I've seen it much worse. --Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks for reprotecting the page; it needed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Gee, I wonder why... - Doug 01:19 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I'm thinking this is one of those pages that will perpetually need to be semi-protected; every time someone decides to unprotect this page, the flow of vandalism far outstrips any constructive content that someone might post. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think five incidents of vandalism in almost two days is grounds for permanent semi-protection. --Maxamegalon2000 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

More like seven, and growing as more and more people realize the article is not semi-protected anymore. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Nishkid64 also felt the page needed semi-protection; kudos to him for making it happen. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I requested it :) SirFozzie 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did too, only from the person who unprotected it in the first place. Doesn't matter now... --PeanutCheeseBar 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid suicide

Whatever happened to the time Jack Thompson made fun of the Metal Gear gamer who commited suicide? Why isn't that in the article, I could've sworn it was here at one point with a good source, so what happened to it? 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we ever had a good source for it. --Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure http://GamePolitics.com has it somewhere--Viridis 09:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but they're not a reliable source for this article. It really didn't get any attention in mainstream media. --Maxamegalon2000 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither do half of his other exploits, but better that than nothing at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Many would disagree with the idea that introducing unreliable sources into a quality article would improve it. --Maxamegalon2000 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU would disagree that adding something that depicts him in a negative light would make the article better, when it would actually serve to bring balance and give a realistic look into what kind of tool he really is. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can't find it on GamePolitics OR their old livejournal so the arguement's moot for the moment.--Viridis 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Source for the event is here, a quote from Thompson's response is here if it helps. I'm the person who broke the story (I wrote the GamingHorizon article and collaborated with the metalgearsolid.org administrator to bring the mis-reporting of the suicide to light) in the first place so I have to stay out of it on Wikipedia (as per the rules) but I'm pretty interested in the material and think it's one of the best demonstrations of Thompson's character and wish it was still in his article. --Asriel 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it demonstrates Thompson's character, and also wish that we could include it in the article. However, gaming sites are not acceptable sources for this article, the most persuasive arguments being that 1) gaming sites may show bias in their coverage, and, in my opinion, the better of the two arguments, 2) compared to the rest of the information in the article, an event not covered by mainstream media is not as notable. I don't mean to trivialize the incident, or question Mr. Dunlap's reporting, but the burden of proving notability rests on the editor who wishes to include the information, and I doubt that the burden can be met in this case. Let's remember that the standard for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is a situation that shows what may be perceived as a flaw in that policy: an account of the incident may be required to use the more mainstream, though clearly incorrect, source. --Maxamegalon2000 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is but one standard that Wikipedia relies on; however, many other Wikipedia articles have links or references to something that is counter to the article content (such as John Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans), and to hold that standard to one article but not another really doesn't do justice to that second article. Furthermore, if you want to argue the point of notability, we can just scale down the whole article, because Thompson rarely appears in the news as it is anyways (undermining his "notability"), and undermining the credibility of the whole article because every time someone posts something that reveals his true nature, it gets taken down. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be linked. Why are we only showing the good things? Every other celeb gets the good and bad on their page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sephy26946 (talk • contribs).

Ready for FAC again?

Glancing over, the article looks good, and the things that made it fail last time don't seem to be an issue that we need to worry about now. It needs a more thorough lead and could benefit from a picture, but otherwise it seems to be in good shape. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think it might be time to nominate it again. --Maxamegalon2000 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My only beef with it would be that it's pretty much perma-protected because of the constant vandals. -Ryanbomber 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I've always been unsure about using industry sources that quote Thompson directly. While I certainly believe that they wouldn't misquote him, I still think that if it's the only source the content may not be as notable. In the case of The Inquirer, I'm worried about the fact that, according to the Wikipedia article, "The INQUIRER's articles are written in a subjective and opinionated tone, with much the same style of reporting common in British tabloid newspapers." --Maxamegalon2000 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cept for one thing: how often does ol' Jack use real references? I don't think it makes that that much of a difference misquoting something that was wrong in the first place Midgitboy 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't say for certain whether or not he uses real references; they may have some basis in reality, but I think there might be a consensus that the information he presents is sensationalized. That having been said, it's important that if we quote him, we do so correctly, regardless of whether or not his quotes have any truth or merit. If they do, good for us; if not, then his quote could still be used, but with further research done on the matter that he is quoting to illustrate that what he said is exaggerated or incorrect. Hopefully, this can be done in a way that demonstrates his character, but does not seek to create bias. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I just agree with EGM (electronic gaming monthly) He's just an angry old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn. He just doesnt like gamers, maybe he got it handed to him playing pong or something. Anyways, In my opinion, it's a load of bull. I've played violent games since I was about five or six. First games I ever remember beating were Mortal Kombat, DOOM and Aladdin :P Anyways, I'm not a violent psychopath, I may hate people, but I won't kill them because I played a virtual "killing simulator" about saving the earth from demons from Hell. Midgitboy 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok

Why nobody added notice about a satyrical joke-game dedicated to mr. Thompson called "I'm ok"?

It should be added.

http://www.imokgame.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.207.129 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

It has been noted on the article A Modest Video Game Proposal which there is a link to in this article. -Ryanbomber 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also noted on I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator, which was also recently prodded (but declined). --Sigma 7 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Crackdown

Could someone find a source for this: "Jack Thompson mistakenly said Microsoft was selling crack, when he heard about the Xbox 360 video game Crackdown, because he did not know it was a game. Ironically, Crackdown was designed by David Jones, who also designed the original Grand Theft Auto."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan78 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, are you sure it's sure? It sounds fake to me. --Averross 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thompson has made some dubious accusations in the past before but this sounds too redlicious to be true. --70.48.175.99 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sweet Christ, does Jack EVER give up? Jack, if you are reading this, RESEARCH the games that you try to ban before you ban them. Microsoft doesnt need to sell crack, bill gates wipes his butt with $100.00 bills anyways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.200.98.184 (talk • contribs).

Clarification about Sims 2

Could someone please confirm that the following statement:

Nevertheless, a command that could be entered into the in-game console in order to disable the blur effect was removed from the game in an expansion. No official reason was given for the change.

is in fact true. My sister (who owns the first three expansions) claims the command still exists (although was apparently changed to accept a parameter as the size of the blur effect (though by setting the size to zero the effect can be achieved)). 24.18.253.28 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, they're still equipped like Ken dolls. Never stopped Jack, though, did it?--Viridis 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It does matter. It gives the impression that EA would cave in to baseless claims from Jack. 164.116.126.143 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

I referenced this article in one of my rants: The Truth about Jack Thompson. If this line is changed at any time (other than vandalism), can someone email me (e-mail address removed) to let me know so I can make the necessary adjustments to my rant? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooKobra (talk • contribs)

I doubt it. It's also not good practice to post your e-mail address, lest it be spammed. If you want you can assign the address to your profile under "my preferences". Feel free to add the article to your watchlist, though, so you can see any changes made. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah, good link. - Doug 21:42, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Not really possible. You shouldn't ever count on any WP article being "fixed". The content of a WP article may change at any moment, its veracity being more of an average over time than a single snapshot. At any given moment it is loaded, this article might be nothing more than a misspelled sentence written by a vandal encouraging Mr. Thompson to perform an anatomically impossible act upon himself. That's the drawback of WP's open editing system. I don't recommend you rely on any specific verbiage found here: the overall meaning may remain fairly consistent over time, but precise phrasing will frequently be altered. Kasreyn 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, looks like I won't get to be lazy :P Kobra 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GamePolitics

Is there any legitimate reason why GamePolitics is not considered a "valid source"? Dlong 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might a valid source. Gamepolitics is notable enough to get it's own article and it's article says that it's a member of the Entertainment Consumers Association so I think it should be considered a valid source.--71.170.41.7 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that bias was cited as a reason in the past. I trust Gamepolitics, but naturally they would be slanted pro-videogame. (just playing devil's advocate for a minute).--Viridis 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I heartily recommend that participants in this discussion begin by reading the archives of this talk page first. After the intervention by WP:OFFICE, only mainstream and highly reputable sources have been used in this article. This has significantly increased the quality of the article, as well as kept the most minor incidents from being included and making the article too long and unwieldy. As for GamePolitics.com, a site I personally visit every day and generally trust, the site maintains a pro-gaming bias that would threaten the neutrality of this article. After all, the site is owned by the Entertainment Consumers Association, and Dennis McCauley did file a complaint against Thompson with the Florida Bar.

To argue for the inclusion of GamePolitics.com as a source, one would need to argue that it does not contain bias, and that the information used is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, especially considering the current quality of sourcing. Of course, I am not the final arbitor, nor do I have any special authority. User:Michael Snow was appointed by WikiMedia's legal council to maintain the quality of this article, and I simply try to maintain its quality to his standards. Feel free to invite him to participate in this discussion here if you wish. --Maxamegalon2000 03:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source. Bias is also a subjective matter; how will anyone ever prove gamepolitic's "unbiased" nature to your satisfaction? The answer is, no one ever will. It's nonsense to approach it from that angle.

What we should do, is to say something like "Gamepolitics - a gamer advocacy site - reports that..." etc. Thus we can use whatever facts Gamepolitics has to offer, while still giving our readers warning of any potential bias Gamepolitics may have. It's not our job to handhold or nanny or censor - just to provide readers with the tools they need to research. With a parenthetical note of that nature, the readers could decide for themselves whether they want to trust what Gamepolitics has to say. Kasreyn 05:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Maxamegalon2000, you shoot down anything from ANY gaming-related website due to either "bias" or "lack of notability", and it only serves to degrade the quality of the article. Material critical of Thompson has been posted here and on several other websites (be it by Penny Arcade, VGCats, GamePolitics, etc.) and Thompson has threatened each of those entities if they did not take down the material. The end result is that they did not cave in to Jack's baseless and empty threats, and Wikipedia has, resulting in an article that is inherently biased towards Thompson, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Furthermore, it only encourages people like Thompson to think that they can continue to "rattle their sabers" and bully entities like Wikipedia just because someone gave in at least once. Continuing to deny sites like GamePolitics will only help to further Thompson's pro-censorship agenda, and harm Wikipedia. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are misusing bias as a complaint here. Bias is a valid complaint when you're talking about someone's opinion being good, but does not effect whether a fact a publication reports is true or not. If Gamepolitics.com lies that's another matter and does invalidate them as a factual source, but that's not a bias issue. Derekloffin 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, Derek, you stole what I was going to say. Gamepolitics is fine as long as we source them for JUST facts. Biased or not, facts can't really be changed. NPOV means nothing when something is just plain bad. -Ryanbomber 16:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The idea that Gamepolitics isn't a reliable source doesn't make sense. JT has become heavily intertwined with the exact subject that Gamepolitics covers. Who could possibly have better qualifications to report news on the Thompson's dealings in the video game industry than a site dedicated to reporting news on the video game industry? - Charagon

Florida Bar VS Bruce

Jack Thompson is being hauled in front of the supreme court of Florida for 5 official complaints regstered against him by various judges in recent cases. It's up on Game politics and a few other game related sites, perhaps a sub-section should be added to "the Florida Bar" section explaining what's going on? - 59.167.42.27 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we're back on the issue of if Gamepolitics is a usable source.--Viridis 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, its true. Sites listed on Google news report this is happening. Various complaints have been leveled at him. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end Wacko Jacko - Doug, 8 February 2007, (UTC)

"Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith." So were the Crusades, the inquisition, the oppression of free thought and expression of the Catholic church in the medieval era, and the oppression of left-handed people. On a side note, how is it right that he is allowed to harass his opponents and violate there rights and liberties because of his "faith" (cough cough). - Doug, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can make that claim based on their faith; however, Jack has a special gift for turning anything anyone says or does into an attack on his religion. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't Christianity teach that one should turn the other cheek when attacked? *Dan T.* 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I said he was good at turning it into an attack on his faith; nowhere did I say that he's good at practicing his faith. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late for the discussion, but i was just reading through the talk page, and Viridis, to be fair to anon, he did say "and a few other game related sites", not citing GP as his only source. Has anyone heard anything new about the whole Disbarrment proceedings against him recently? The section should probably be updated if it has. - Count23 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While reading Gamepolitics regularly I haven't heard anything new about it.--Viridis 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Flowers For Jack article

I know that this is technically not the right place for this, however, people keep reverting the Flowers For Jack article (linked to in this article) without dealing with the issues on the discussion page. I feel I have given good reasons for removing the sections. If you can find more reliable sources for that information, then let's source them. If not, then the Pixelante Nation gossip & rumor content should not be in the article at all, no matter how much you believe it to be true. Please discuss before reverting the page. Thank you for your time. --Anonymous 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture?

Why is there not a picture of Mr. Thompson in this article? One Elephant went out to play... 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is an issue in finding a recent photograph of him that is not copyrighted by the AP or by any other media outlet... --PeanutCheeseBar 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the cover of the book he made a while back. Wasn't he on that?--Viridis 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Challenge

It has come to my attention that Mr Thompson has a challange on his hands heres the link http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20051012

I believe that was made jokingly, a satirical riff on Jack's Modest Proposal. I don't think anyone actually made that game (though I did see conceptual and half-made games like this in the Ctrl+Alt+Del forums).--Viridis 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Take Two vs. Jack Thompson

I found another quite neutral reference for the recent lawsuit, here, at GamePolitics.com. The page also contains a link to the actual lawsuit. Perhaps these links can be used to flesh out the paragraph, or the newly-spawned article on the lawsuit. I would add this information myself, but I am remarkably awful at contributing major things to actual articles. --Dreaded Walrus 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Jack Thompson has responded. This should probably be added into the article (I am awful at major changes, still). The best bit is where he says that God makes videogames. --Dreaded Walrus 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the part where he attributes to God the actual direct authorship of The Bible, essentially laughing in the face of hundreds of years of archeology. Literalists make me laugh. --Sleet01 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it common knowledge that prophets wrote the bible? Doesn't John 3:16 mean John wrote that book of the Bible?--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more information will be added to the article if a valid source picks up the information. --Maxamegalon2000 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As well as the Kotaku article, it has now been mentioned over at Gamepolitics.com, here. I haven't looked anywhere else, but I imagine there maybe a few other ones later on in the day. Do either of these qualify as 'valid'? --Dreaded Walrus 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you want a "mainstream" newspaper. Websites pertaining to gaming news aren't considered as reliable as normal due to a potential POV bias - and also because of the fact that the former ESA spokesperson was stating that these sites give him too much attention. --Sigma 7 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Heck, GamePolitics.com is owned and presented by the Entertainment Consumers Association. That doesn't stop me from reading it every day, but perhaps it should give one pause before using it as a source in an encyclopedia article about one of the most vocal critics of video games. --Maxamegalon2000 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That just doesn't make any sense. Wacky Jack's highjinx might not generate enough interest for the New York Times to pick up, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The idea that Gamepolitics isn't qualified to be a reliable source of news about the politics of the video game industry is highly illogical. - Charagon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.15.36.178 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

He's filed a counter-suit against Take Two and a copy of the transcript is available on gamepolitics.com and gamespot.com. this lawsuit may be enough to warrant it's own sub-section on JBJTs page now. - Count23 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Take Two Interactive v. John B. Thompson Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delicious bonus: he's including Penny Arcade in his conspiracy and racketeering charges. It must be exciting to live in a delusional fever dream where everyone is out to get you, and showing you up as a liar is somehow extorting money from you. Magicflyinlemur 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plant

Is it possible that Jack Thompson is some kind of agent provocateur against opponents of homosexuality and the gaming industry? Look at the Fred Phelps article; a section sees some of "the extreme right" as suggesting that he's a "plant aimed at giving he anti-gay movement a bad name." With all the ire and "FUCK OFF AND DIE" he's attracted with his court antics and, outside the courtroom, with his shitheadedness, it's not that hard to imagine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.43.92 (talk • contribs). AMEN!!! 71.200.98.184 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. I think the man is simply verifiably insane, and really thinks he's standing up to the foul, demon-spawned game industry. He also has a tremendous ego and makes barely coherent calls to people who disagree with/upset him. I seriously doubt he's some brilliant ruse; frankly, I don't think he's that clever. Magicflyinlemur 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess so. But if he honestly thinks he's doing the right thing, he'd better start cleaning up his goddamn act. The reason why I drew the Fred Phelps parallel is that he's starting to look like him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.107.142.145 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia Submission

I think you Wikipedia boys should include in the information about how you all bent over and took it when Wikipedia was threatened with a law suit by Jack. I mean, it's only wrong to ignore the fact that Wikipedia got spanked when Jack threatened to sue when you weeny's posted wrong information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.57.52.61 (talk • contribs).

That would probably be acceptable, if you could find a valid and reputable source for the information. --Maxamegalon2000 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that down to OFFICE action? If so, that has happened many times in the past, and it is a mere precaution, where an article is frozen, regardless of whether something is correct or incorrect, while the particular issue is dealt with. It has nothing, really, to do with "us weeny's" "posting wrong information". --Dreaded Walrus 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. OFFICE action is not just freezing of the article. It is deletion of the article and a strict order never to reuse the same material that the deleted version contained. Natch, since the article is deleted, no article history would exist to show non-admins what to avoid posting in order to avoid a block; therefore the ultimate effect, intended or not, of OFFICE action is a chilling effect upon WP content. One way or the other, it has the intended effect. I am not aware of any information here which was false even before the OFFICE action (not counting routine (and routinely reverted) vandalism of the genus "Jack Thompson is a doodoohead".

My understanding was that Thompson claimed the information contained in the article was false and defamatory (no doubt if that didn't work he had another letter citing "racketeering" lined up and ready to mail), and I don't recall there being any community consensus, or effort at reaching consensus, that there had actually been any false and defamatory statements (again, beside the routine vandalism that rarely lasts longer than two minutes). This sort of thing is easily covered by WP's general content disclaimer, which references the fact that random, routine vandalism occurs. I'm not aware of there being any Siegenthaler-esque untruths. As far as I know, OFFICE just swung into action when they got the impression that a lawyer with a large media footprint was pissed. Naturally, since there is no history of the version before deletion for me to look at, we have no recourse but to take OFFICE's word that the pre-blanking article deserved it.

In any case, without having a copy of the pre-blanking article as a reference, how could we ever source a reference to it? Was WP's blanking of this page reported in a third party news source? Kasreyn 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Jacks site get taken down or something?

When I go to www.stopkill.com I get a search thingy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sephy26946 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Things like that ususally mean the creator stopped paying for the domain.--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He took stopkill.com down about 18 months ago and flabar.org down 6 months ago after someone kept hacking his site and putting in a wav file of the "biggest douche in the universe" theme from South Park. - Count23 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is so cool! Funny as hell too. :D --Averross (u♠t♠c) 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)