Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)

 A whiteboard of events, gathered together from many different websites can be found at Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/Research

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 October 2006 - February 2007

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)

no real cristism of jack here

after skiming over the artical I dont see much saying how crazy this guy is. he attacks without solid facts (see what he is saying about v-tech massacure) Is the lack of critism because he will sue wikipedia if any is intruduced. this artical almost supports jack , and its posibly to constructivly say public opion of him.

What you speak is an opinion of the man, and while I'm sorry if I may sound rude in my response, I think it would be best to point out that Wikipedia is a site meant for facts. Not opinions, however popular they may be. Although, I guess that kind of stuff is more than plentiful here in the discussion page! =D 75.46.246.253 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone with any previous knowledge of him doesn't need to hear any criticism. And anyone who talks about him anywhere online but here will hear all they need to about him, along with some words they might not have known before. JDub90 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Jack Thompson of being insane and reporting that he has been accused of being insane[1] are separate things. Someone should make note of the latter, perhaps. --Chr.K. 09:22, 11 May 2007 (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)

Well, You just have to admit, it IS a video clip, and shouldn't be treated differently, just because of threats Jack has brought against wikipedia. The video should be permitted, but adding disparaging remarks beside it is against the ToS, isn't it? Just add the video, leave things as they lie, and forget about treating him differently than others. This is still just an article on him, not an article on the image he wishes to present to the public. --Joeskipsey 14:55, 11 April 2007

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)

People vandalize it because he is a jerk. I don't see why they can't.-Solomn Edifice

Because that's a matter of opinion, and it's not "fact." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.73.83 (talk • contribs).

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).

Sure, gaming sites are biased. But now look the other way, and find out what the other way is? The only positive sources come from verified, yet also biased opinion sources. There's bias everywhere, and we would likely insert such words like (apparently, possibly, likely, might have, etc.) to push out the semi-verified forms. There has even been proud claims by the man himself that those were his words, and it's a shame that people are trying to protect him from himself. Seriously, if it comes from a source of news, it should be allowed. After all, where do many of the positive pieces on Jack come from? Conservative, middle aged to elderly, catholic and christian americans. His main base of support. In two ways are battles fought, the hearts and minds of the people. If the information from one side is removed due to bias, I sa what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Perhaps we should pull the parts that are sourced to overtly religious or political sources, hm? It's only fair. Because I don't know about you, but by my standards, if someone tells the world that soceity is better off without [insert definable group here], then it's time they looked at that soceity and started asking some pretty serious questions.--Joeskipsey 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Were there any overtly religious or political sources in particular that you felt were biased? It certainly would be reasonable to discuss them. --Maxamegalon2000 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is some interesting information up about his court case if you look at the Florida Supreme Court's site. http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2007&p_casenumber=80&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType= One thing of particular interest was an order filed on 4/12/07 which states "The petition for writ of mandamus, "Additional Relief Sought by Petition for Writ of Mandamus," "Additional Grounds for Granting this Petition for Writ of Mandamus," "Motion for In Camera Inspection of Two Bar Documents," "Additional Support for Petition for Writ of Mandamus," and "Additional Grounds for Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Request that Filing Fee Be Returned to Plaintiff," raise issues that should be determined by the referee and are hereby dismissed without prejudice to seek appropriate relief before the referee. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.6(h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(8), (m)(1). By order dated February 14, 2007, respondent was specifically advised that all future pleadings should be filed with the referee until the referee's report has been filed with this Court. Respondent is reminded to comply with the orders of this Court. Additionally, the Court notes that respondent has attached inappropriate and pornographic materials to his petitions that are irrelevant to his arguments. Respondent is warned that should he continue to submit such inappropriate filings, the Court will consider imposing sanctions which may include, but are not limited to, a limitation on Respondent's ability to submit further filings without the signature of an attorney other than himself." Perhaps some of this information should be added to the Florida Bar section?

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)

I believe that would be copywrited by him. Someone might want to get written concent for Wiki to use one of their stock photos of Thompson for wiki, potentialy some news outlet might be willing. -Starke (May 2nd, 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.249.145 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 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)

Further reading: A Modest Video Game Proposal --Kikimaru 16:28, 23 April 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)

Take Two Interactive v. John B. Thompson has just been settled. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:34, 19 April 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).

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. The thing of it is that, being insane, the man probably doesn't really understand why he comes off so awful. I kind of get the feeling he doesn't even know where he is most of the time. Magicflyinlemur 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Except he's not insane. He's the only lawyer in Florida to be declared legally sane. The only excuse he doesn't have an excuse for is simply being a jackass. JDub90 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Personaly I doubt that he's the only laywer in Florida who's been required to undergo psychiatric examination, but, he definatly has a psychological disorder, not one that causes him to be legaly insane or legaly incompent though. Something of a tragidy. The idea that he's a plant is only plausible to a point, but, he's been doing this for a long time. And some of his behavior has been of the varity that one wouldn't want being public, for instance the Janet Reno antagonizim, so, I'd say that idea was pretty much shot there. An agitator wouldn't be pushing the limit in such a way that he risked being disbarred for his behavior. Starke (May 2nd, 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.249.145 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 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)

Your estranged family here at Encyclopedia Dramatica recovered this link: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/228672.html?mode=reply

while not a "official" 3rd party source, it is still from the head of Gamepolitics at LiveJournal, it's got to count for something. It would also look good on Wikipedia's part for mentioning Jack's threat of a lawsuit, because it looks awfully biased if you don't include it somewhere in the article.

This is obviously a late addition to the conversation, but the pre-blanking article is still included in the history: [2]. --Maxamegalon2000 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We should have some sort of section mentioning his threat to sue Wikipedia. It seems awfully biased to not include it. --Nintendorulez talk 19:39, 16 April 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)

Virginia Tech School Shooting - April 16th 2007

Only hours after the school shooting at Virginia Tech today (April 16th, 2007), Jack Thompson was live on CNN television literally crying (during the 12:00PM PST news hour). Even though we aren't even sure who the shooter was and the only thing we know is that he might possibly be Asian and in his 20s, Jack Thompson used the situation to promote himself by implying that GTA, Counterstrike, Half Life and (web based?) flash games and the entertainment industry could have contributed somehow in this killing spree. I have not found any online source for this via CNN's website yet, however. Cordell 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the television appearance itself is a source, but it probably would be better to wait until something shows up online. Unless, of course, someone was watching and transcribing it for us. --Maxamegalon2000 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fark.com comments regarding him being on the air put his Fox appearance at about 3:15PM EST, just under 6 hours after the 2nd round of shootings began. Hope that helps in trying to find a transcript or video of his comments. --Billdorr 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He was not on CNN, he was on Fox News. I hate him as much as the next guy, but the small line with him blaming the VT killings on games should be revised. He suggested it, not aggressively pushing it like he always does. This is an encyclopeida, not an anti-Jack site.

Thank you for the correction. I was bouncing between news channels when he appeared. However, his comments correlating this shooting with videogames and entertainment was not a small line. It was the majority of his on-air time. He talked about school shooters playing videogames to train themselves to control their breathing while killing people. He talked about violence as referenced in the Capote movie. He talked about appearing in front of congress to talk about violence in videogames relating to school shootings. He was also appearing on FNC today presenting himself specifically as a school shooting expert, which of course he is not. If this wasn't directly attempting to capitalize on and relate to this latest shooting at a school with videogames and the entertainment industry, then there would have been no point to spending so much of his time talking about it during his segment. Or, for that matter, even having him on since violence in videogames is his entire deal. Hopefully there will be a transcript on FOX's website or the segment will appear on youtube or elsewhere sometime. He did not directly blame this shooting on it, but he certainly exploited this fresh situation by drawing the two together very prematurely and for that, his statements are absolutely notable. Cordell 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to make something clear. His appearance on Fox News is the source for his comments. We don't need another source, Kotaku, for example, to note his appearance. We can cite the program itself. What we do need, however, is to know what it is he said. This is where information from video gaming sites can become problematic. Did he say that video games were the cause? Did he say they may have been the cause? Did he say they may have contributed? We need to get the details right. At some point a video will probably appear online, and then we can know with certainty. A video isn't necessary, per se, if enough people here saw the interview and agree as to what was said. We can then cite the show itself. Of course, I imagine this will be a non-issue, and a video will arrive pretty soon. If that does not occur, eventually I will be able to find a transcript through my university access. --Maxamegalon2000 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the segment will be repeated tonight. I found a mention much earlier on geek.com but it wasn't very detailed. Also, Newstalk ZB89.4. Anyway, at least that should clear up that we're not insane. :) Cordell 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost 7 minute clip of him on Fox News yesterday is on YouTube now. --Billdorr 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know if he blamed a particular game? Mixmastermind 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he blames Counter Strike. Quantumchaos 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the first poster say Half-Life and flash based games were also mentioned?--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that I missed the very first part of Jack's appearance on FOX (FNC), so I do not know the entire context in which his comments where made. I don't believe he directly blamed anything at all, but he certainly made plenty of implications considering there had been almost no information about the shooting other than the shooter being Asian at the point of his comments. Anyway, his comments included Grand Theft Auto, Counterstrike, Half Life and flash games in the same sentence. Let me also note that I inferred that he meant flash games on the web, but that might not be what he meant. He also commented briefly on the effect of violence in the media on killers by way of a reference to the topic of the recent Phillip Seymour Hoffman movie Copote. Cordell 05:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

exactly. when the MGS2 player killed him(her?)self, all that Jack did was ridicule them, and their friends. he should learn that not every murder is caused by video games, although they play a minor part. there are other things that play a part in these types of shootings, like mental diseases, how they were treated, traumatic events, etc. Jack Thompson, I hope that you are reading this. 71.200.98.184 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Jack Sarfatti also had somebody insert a piece claiming that that guy ranted about this shooting, in his case blaming it on the "islamofascists". The paragraph was removed soon due to lack of sourcing (it was allegedly from a mailing list or message board). There's something about incidents like this that both brings the wackos out of the woodwoork to make bizarre, unsupported theories of why the shooting happened (which just happen to mesh with their own political and social viewpoints), and brings the Wikipedians out to show the world how wacky the wackos are by adding inadequately-sourced reports of it to their articles. *Dan T.* 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That definitely didn't happen during the segment he appeared in on Fox News on April 16th. It doesn't sound like Jack Thompson, anyway. Cordell 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat typical of him to me...--70.158.160.6 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a clip on Youtube.com showing footage from FOX News, Jack Thompson is interviewed on phone by host. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weG7A4lTGtg

Thanks for the link. I've watched it, and I'm honestly not sure if there's anything we can use regarding the Virginia Tech shootings. He mostly talks about previous school shootings, so we might be able to use this as a citation for some of the other incidents. The only thing he seems to say about this specific incident is that the FBI will be looking at his computer, which is neither here nor there. This appearance doesn't seem to me to be any more significant than all of his other ones. --Maxamegalon2000 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On the video clip, Thompson did discuss past school shootings and how the perpetrators were somehow involved with video games; given that this is a Thompson article, and events like these fall within the domain of things that Thompson comments on, it's certainly worth putting in the article. On top of that, it's useful in that you actually hear Thompson himself, instead of relying on reading articles or news blurbs that might be biased one way or the other; this lets us hear the man himself. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For one, we're not allowed to link to YouTube links that are copyright violations, which, unless Fox News uploaded it, this video is. Second, this clip isn't all that different from all of his other television appearances. We don't need to note all of his television appearances; I don't know why we need to note this one. --Maxamegalon2000 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright, a link or source source from FOXNews does need to be found, and this does need to be documented; the event he is commenting on is of great notability, and to make note of lesser incidents on Thompson's article while deliberately ignoring ones that garner much more attention (such as the shootings) undermines the credibility of this article, and outside of Wikipedia, trivializes the shootings. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim seems to be that we need to document every one of his appearances, which doesn't make sense. This isn't a Jack Thompson incident at all. There's no mention of the shootings in the articles on Dr. Phil or Rush Limbaugh, and I don't see how this appearance was different from any of his others. Very little of what he said was related to the VT shootings. People comment on incidents all the time. --Maxamegalon2000 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh talks every day. Thompson only talks sometimes. Seems reasonable to include it here. It's relevant. Not every lawyer gets to soapbox on fox news when disasters strike. At any rate, why can't we just cite Fox News without a link, similarly to how we'd cite a book or magazine with no online presence? Why does there have to be a hyperlink to the source? Isn't providing the source enough? Fieari 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We certainly can cite it without a link, and we probably can use it for a number of different parts of the article. But he says so little about the Virginia Tech shooting that I don't think there's much to say. "Thompson appeared on FOX News on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, discussing violent video games and school shootings"? I don't see how this appearance is different from any of his other appearances. Why would we mention this one and not all of his others? --Maxamegalon2000 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite it without a link? Last I recall, there's been several occasions where things have been cited without links, and most of the time you've been the person to take them down. Also, nowhere did I say we have to cite EVERYTHING he says; I only pointed out that it's a bit absurd to cut out commentary on such a huge event as the VT shootings, while leaving in commentary from events with a much lesser impact.

In addition, I have to say that Fieari makes a good point about Thompson making comments to the media; people like Limbaugh and and Dr. Phil are everyday figures, but it's not everyday that Thompson gets the spotlight. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. 67 of our 117 citations do not have links to Internet articles or videos. My qualm with the FOX News appearance is that he says so little about the Virginia Tech shooting specifically. I actually just found this video, [3], where he actually comments on details of this shooting. If anyone would like to use that MSNBC report as a source, with the FOX News video as a supplement, that would be fine. We have a number of citations from television programs; I'm sure we can figure out how to cite these correctly. --Maxamegalon2000 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you found that video, though as I said before, you (and a few other users) have removed citations without links in the past and stated that without links, it's no good. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Link here should take you to the video. I think this information helps paint of clear picture of his character. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weG7A4lTGtg TIinPA

Here's another one: [4]. --Maxamegalon2000 05:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and written a paragraph. The FOX News appearance really didn't have anything to cite, so I didn't use it. --Maxamegalon2000 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article about what Jack Thompson says about it: http://l2pnoob.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/bill-gates-is-responsible-for-vt-shootings-jack-t/ - 69.104.167.21 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it increditable people believe him as he so easily just effectively says "Oh, his room mate is wrong, he must be." Good old Jack --90.240.170.234 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC has written a full article about his diatribe here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/ This article not only describes what he said, but does research and debunks it; apparently, the shooter is demonstratively not a gamer at all. Fieari 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's already in use in the article. --Maxamegalon2000 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Republican "religious conservative?"

That line needs to be removed. When browsing through articles on various left-leaning "radicals" that are usually demonized, no political affiliation is mentioned in the page, and usually the word "liberal" or "left" is not found in the article. It seems unfair that when a right-leaning "radical," that is usually demonized, Wikipedia authors find it necessary to list the political affiliation and their ideology. Yes, we all know that Wikipedia leans fairly far-left, but at least keep it fair. I have chose not to be a member of Wikipedia, so, unfortunately, I can not edit the page and remove that line, for it is a locked page. Keep it fair guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.52.13 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

That line is from an article written by Thompson. It is how he described himself; feel free to check the citation. I'm not sure how that is unfair. --Maxamegalon2000 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

that is called self-glorification. if you want to see more, then read JT's book, "Out Of Harm's Way". he used that to make himself look like the ultra-sensor. 71.200.98.184 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you written this little rant without finding out that he described himself like that? No "left-wing" conspiracy at work here, mate.--Svetovid 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

read the book's cover. he wrote it (not only the cover, but the book) himself. he used it to look like he was the good guy, all gamers are terrorists, and he wins every case he's participated in.

the truth is: JT is second only to Fred Phelps in terms of level of hatred, us gamers are the good guys, and he has only won 1 case, and I'm not even too sure about that one. 71.200.98.184 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Thompson & Take Two Settle

Just read about it on GamePolitics. [5]

InformationWeek is also carrying a story on the settlement. [6] --JohnDBuell 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess he's going to have to find another videogame developer/publisher to complain about. Strider01 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Already has, CounterStrike (complete with writing a nasty gram to Bill Gates blaming the VTech massacres on Microsoft... despite Microsoft having nothing to do with the PC game) SirFozzie 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bahahaha, that's hilarious how he's saying that Microsoft made Counter-Strike, even though the only thing MS has ever had to do with CS is publishing the crappy Xbox version of it. Strider01 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More lawsuits...

Breaking news, Jack is suing Kotaku's parent company because of reader-posted comments. Frankly, that's just a little silly.[7]--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wade through his lawsuit here: http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/legal/FL-JT-Kotaku.pdf--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 23:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He meanders all over the place before getting to a point (if he has one), even mentioning the Terri Schiavo case at one point. It seems like one of the things he's trying to get at is that being a dangerous lunatic is constitutionally protected if it's a dangerous Christian lunatic... that's religious freedom, y'know. *Dan T.* 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This lawsuit is actually an amendment to a prior suit against the Florida bar.[8] All relevant information has been posted in the article. Unfortunately, that (the Kotaku/GamePolitics version) is the best link to the text of the actual complaint available for free. PACER has the complain in full, but it's not free (or cheap). The Justia docket information verifies the complaint, though, and is free. Dark54555

Unfortunately?--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As it comes from a blog, wiki frowns on it as a legitimate source.Dark54555

I'd like to clarify my last edit summary, regarding the use of Justia as a source. It's just that Jack Thompson is a lawyer, and it follows that he's going to be involved in law suits. Justia lists a number of Thompson's suits against many different clients, and it would be inappropriate for us to pick and choose which suits to mention, unless we have secondary sources that assert the notability of a specific case. What are people's thoughts on adding Justia's list of Thompson's current suits as an external link? --Maxamegalon2000 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maxamegalon, did you read the complaint? It alleges, among other things, a vast conspiracy among the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court, and Gawker (Kotaku) against him. As you've reverted the post 4 times now, you must really be against it appearing on the wiki, but it's evidence of (at a minimum) his over litigious nature against those who seem to oppose him, and based on the way the complaint is written, it may be evidence he's finally going off the deep end. As for Justia, it just keeps an archive of filings that appear on the district court websites, but it also has the appropriate links to every bit of case history and all filings (assuming you want to pay for them). The problem is there is no way to link to free versions of those filings at this stage in the litigation. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia current, I think Justia links are perfectly legitimate. Moreover, free reproductions of otherwise pay material, as long as it's verifiable (for example, the case number) should be equally relevant, short of some outbreak of people creating fake lawsuit documents online (which is both time consuming and rather pointless).Dark54555

The article already mentions the disbarment proceedings. Unless you feel there is insufficient sources to determine this is a response to the disbarment proceedings, or part of a response to them, I fail to see how it would not be equally significant.65.213.142.2 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit goes byebye

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/26/breaking-kotaku-suit-goes-bye-bye-over-thompson-screw-up/--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/27/breaking-kotaku-suit-goes-bye-bye-over-thompson-screw-up/ Got moved. It's a technical fault, and he can still re-file (properly) as an amended complaint. Toast for now, but not gone by any stretch.Dark54555

VT shooting

jack thompson has recently blamed microsoft for the Virgina Tech shootings.

well, it's Jack Thompson, what did you expect?71.200.98.184 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What Bar admitted him?

I see that this article details his legal battle with the Florida Bar, but what Bar does he himself belong to? The Florida one? Or the Ohio Bar? This article should mention what state he has the Bar in, if that information is available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwakkles (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The Florida Bar, where he resides. He primarily practices law there, so its sort of a given. The article gives a link to his membership page at the florida bar. The florida bar would also not be able to disbar him were he not a member of their organization.65.213.142.2 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thompson's targetting Wendy's.

[9] - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Halo 3

I added a brief line about how Thompson sent a letter to Microsoft regarding Halo 3. Found the letter here: http://www.gamealmighty.com/story-individual/story/Jack_Thompson_Lays_His_Legal_Sites_on_Halo_3/ --Jakelshark 05:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but gaming sites are not considered reputable sources for this article. I will continue to look for a reputable source for this information. --Maxamegalon2000 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's horrible logic. Gamepolitics is not only acknowledged by many people involved in video game controversies (including Jack Thompson), but they report on many details. To say that game sites are not reputable sources - assuming you mean to say that they are biased and cannot be used as a source - could be just as easily used on any liberal media web site, in regard to it being used as a source on a controversial piece of information related to Bush. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I might be having trouble understanding WP:RS the same as you, megalon. According to WP:RS:

• "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
• The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

Which source would be regarded as more authoritative on games-related matters? Gamesindustry.biz, or the Daily Herald?

Which source would be regarded as more authoritative on motorhomes? Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly, or the Evening Standard?

Anyway, I have found two more outlets reporting the news (thanks Google News), though both use the original Game Almighty article as a source. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um? Your whole argument shows that the game site is better simply because it puts all focus into the the gaming industry and nothing else, while the Daily Herald does everything. There has yet to be any evidence whatsoever that a games web site is patently unreliable, and the whole point of this discussion was that because it was a gaming web site, it could not be used as a source on this matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was arguing the same point as you. Hence why mine was indented once against Megalon's post. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice. I glazed over the first line and assumed the message was in response to me. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Slashdot has just picked up on it, can we consider that a reliable source? http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/05/23/2146236.shtml - --Pinkank 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it points to the source that was originally objected to above, probably not. Slashdot isn't known for checking the accuracy of anything that is posted. Mrand ^T-C 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely moot - the original source is not pathologically unreliable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not ENTIRELY moot; you've just fighting the same battle that many other contributors have already fought against Maxamegalon2000, and suffering the same result. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see an issue. He sent a letter. There is a source (that seems to be mutually agreed to be fine with one exception) to verify that he has sent a letter, therefore there is nothing fundamentally wrong with putting in a sentence saying that he has sent his letter, right? Besides http://gamepolitics.com/ also have a story where they confirm they also have a copy of the letter. They esentially verify the original source of verification. DarkSaber2k 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the absence. I've been somewhat busy this week, and I plan on working on a more thorough and detailed response soon. Quickly, my major concerns: As DarkSaber2k puts it, "He sent a letter." Attorneys send letters all the time. The only evidence that this particular letter is notable is its coverage at a number of video game news sites, which is below the threshold of notability that this article currently maintains. Even GamePolitics agrees that "there’s nothing there. The letter is a mere threat on Thompson’s part, and not even a well-defined one." As I've pointed out before, GamePolitics is owned by the Entertainment Consumers Association and filed a bar complaint against Thompson. Dreaded Walrus asks "Which source would be regarded as more authoritative on motorhomes? Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly, or the Evening Standard?" Probably Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly, but the questions ignores two points. First, coverage in Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly does not grant the notability that coverage in the Evening Standard does, so greater depth and coverage does not necessarily mean that anything Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly says is worth mentioning. Second, this isn't an article on a video game, it's an article on a Florida attorney. The analogy is much better applied to a question about a legal news site. And I don't see how it can possibly be asserted that coverage that includes such prose as Here is an example of a man with too much time on his hands. He's spent so much time with himself that he now thinks he can take on the biggest software company in the world. It's like a mouse sitting in a hole, looking up at Mount Everest and thinking, Yeah, I can climb that. So he does, and you know what happens to that mouse? He freezes to death at the base. Then a goat eats him. And then all his little mice friends just shake their heads disapprovingly. to be unbiased, or a site that ignores its source material and claims that Mr. Thompson apparently couldn't reach Bill Gates directly, so he fired off his letter by proxy to the gaming press instead. to be reliable. I'll be posting something more substantial in the next few days. --Maxamegalon2000 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"First, coverage in Motorcaravan Motorhome Monthly does not grant the notability that coverage in the Evening Standard does"

Oh, I agree entirely, 100% on that. Likewise, everything which gets mentioned in Cross-stitch Weekly (assuming there is such a magazine) is not as notable as something which gets mentioned on ABC News. Although the point I was trying to make (and I thought this is what the discussion was about at the time) was not about the notability of the event, but rather the reliability of the source. Which you address in your second point quite well.

To be honest, I just had a look at WP:RS and saw the bit about "authoritative", and made a comparison about that. I sometimes have a habit of playing Devil's advocate. I don't care too much about whether this particular story is involved in the article (hell, it isn't even getting that much coverage in the games press, relatively speaking), I was more interested in the RS discussion, I think. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A non-gaming site that is covering this article. OBEY STARMAN 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

they reference the original source though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.226.112.193 (talk • contribs).

So? No one is able to show that GP has an apparent bias against Jack Thompson to the point where they would claim that he made a statement that could potentially get him in trouble. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that in a debate on whether or not a source is reliable referencing a third party site that references the site in question as its source isnt helpful. If it referenced another source or claimed that it got the information through its own means than its helpful.

ALttP, it is the opinion of some editors here (myself not included) that if the site does reports on video games or video game-related news, then it's biased. Regardless, if another non game-related site sees fit to comment about or link to the original game-related site's article, then that site is staking its reputation and credibility on the game-related site's article; linking to a gaming site's article doesn't inherently taint or ruin the credibility of the story or the site. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you're saying that it is a matter of impossibility for a gaming site to be unbiased in any sense of the word? Newsflash: This is something that you would be hard-pressed to even show. I would LOVE it if you showed a time where GamePolitics made a false news article. Until then, assuming bias "because" is a horrible reason to not use a source. Should we also not use news sites that report news about only one state? I mean, after all, wouldn't they be most likely to post pro-"that state" news? Also, Gamepolitics is a reliable secondary source. If you can't prove it's bad, stop saying it's bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again ALttP, you're attacking me for no reason; I'd love to use gaming sites as a source, except Maxamegalon will revert them because they're inherently "biased" (at least, in his eyes). That having been said, please read my posts a little more carefully before replying to me and blindly attacking me. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

Why is she mentioned under the "Rap music" section? Perhaps that section could be renamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.168.204 (talk • contribs).

I was about to agree with you and change the name of the section, but then I read the bit about Madonna, which looks like this:

"Thompson’s push to label various musical performances obscene was not entirely limited to rap. In addition to taking on 2 Live Crew, Thompson campaigned against sales of the racy music video for Madonna’s Justify My Love."

So therefore, as it already states that it was not just limited to rap music, that explains why it's there. It also perhaps wouldn't be appropriate to rename the section, as he isn't opposed to all forms of music, and the vast majority of the complaints he had were directed at rap acts. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

comments on islam

im suprised nobody mentioned these comments. can you add something on what he said about islam, because thats bull. islam condones violence, no matter what insane idiots like jack thompson says and it just adds to the bad stereotyps that are given to muslim men. i sereiously doubt he has read the whole quran so i dont see what gives him the right to jump the gun and say that stuff, especially about prophet mohammed. can you just add that muslims who heard these comments were enraged and that islam condone violence excuse me if im out of line please, someone do this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooly (talk • contribs).

Do you have any sources for him saying these things? If you can find news reports from reliable sources, then we can have a look at what he said. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is, unless you're talking about the stuff you just removed from the article. In which case, yes it's in the article. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ITS IN THE ARTICLE (Thompson and Howard Stern) Never mind i deleted it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooly (talk • contribs).

Yes, he was out of line. But it was a notable thing he has said, so I re-included it. I don't agree with Mr Thompson on this issue (or most issues), but just deleting quotes from an article just because the person who said them was wrong should not be done. Like I say, I am not condoning his comments, and I also heavily disagree with his opinion, but it should still be included in the article. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

i guess, i just think someone should add saying the response of the muslim communtiy because this just adds to the bad image (Gooly 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)).

If you can find a source giving the response of the Muslim community, feel free to add it. --Maxamegalon2000 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry im new so i dont know much about this. anyway, its just that not many muslims would know that he said that. is there anyway of saying that what he said was wrong without violating guidelines on non factual or unsourced comments? i would really appreciate it. (Gooly 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)).

Pretty much the only way you would be able to avoid violating guidelines on original research, would be to cite your sources. Even if you just provide it as an inline link, someone will probably be along to correct it soon.

The problem is, we cannot say that there was a negative response from the Muslim community, if we cannot find (for example) news reports saying so. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ok. i think i should just put a link to the islam page, because i seriously doupt many muslims know who jack thompson is. problem is, i dont know how to do links. im just going to the help section (Gooly 22:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)) i did the link, it works. (Gooly 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Yep! And now, anyone can click that, and they will go to the page on Islam. It's really simple to make links to other Wikipedia pages, you just put it in double square brackets. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok i found a site which says about how islam condones violence; will i be able to act on that? sorry for bumbing an old thing but im still anoyed about what he said. heres the link: http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html (Gooly 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

No, not really. The response has to be in response to Thompson's statements, otherwise the information would be better placed in an article about what the comments are actually in response to. --Maxamegalon2000 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bugger. Ok, i'll keep searching. (Gooly 18:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree with Maxamegalon2000. The link you provide is in response to the ]]. And if you go to that article, there is definitely mention of the mainstream Muslim American condemnation of the events. It even mentions the company you link to by name.

As Maxamegalon says, if we are to include a response to his claims in the article, they have to actually be a response to his claims.

As the article stands though, I wouldn't worry about people reading that and getting the wrong idea about Islam. Most people who read through the article would probably realise that often he says things that aren't actually true, or are exaggerations. Still, I've wikilinked Islam and Quran, so that anyone wishing to find out more can do so with more ease. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)