Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jack's Wikipedia Threat?

If I recall, JT threatened wikipedia with a "lawsuit" because the information on here wasn't correct. I find it strange that it is conveniently ommited in the article about him, about how Jacky boy threatened wikipedia.

http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/228672.html?mode=reply

If nothing else, this link should be added to the article links at the bottom of the page, not to mention some of the content of the link added to the article about Thompson. It speaks on the character of Thompson, is a fine example of how trigger-happy he is when it comes to filing lawsuits, and would be instrumental in pointing out that Wikipedia acknowledges his vandalism attempt on the page. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peaceaholics

in the eighth paragraph under section 4.1 (Litigation) is this: "He also participated in a protest at Rockstar’s office that also included students from Peaceaholics, a Washington, D.C. mentoring organization. One must wonder, though, at the credibility of an organization whose name is based on the term for a debilitating and life-threatening addiction." that last sentence does not seem to be very neutral language. i'm not sure if it should be reworded or removed all together, so i thought i would just point it out here.

[edit] Archives

Note that Archives 1-7 are pre-WP:OFFICE article discussions. Archives 8-11 concern the current state of this article.

  • As a fun note, I just put them in a much better format, and the archival system from 1-5 is strange, lots of overlapping. They also don't seem to be long enough to warrant an archive. From Archive 6 on, they are pretty long and extensive. Hbdragon88 06:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

There is a new article up now. Everything in it comes from reputable mainstream sources. I would say that the weakest sources here are either a small local publication like the Toledo Blade, or perhaps a paper like the New York Post, depending on what you think of it. In any case, this level of sourcing will be the minimum expected for the article henceforth.

If a proposed source is not as good or better than these sources, it must be discussed on the talk page first. Without a strong case to specifically use one and general agreement on its inclusion, a lesser source will not be allowed - no LiveJournal. All additions and changes must provide a reference. Anything that doesn't will be summarily reverted. --Michael Snow 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you’re a hit man or a video gamer,”

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/police/2924321.html

He apparently told police to search a suspects house for video games, due to his belief that games make killers.

IanC 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Minton, James (2006-06-03). Video games seized from teen’s home. The Advocate. Retrieved on 2006-06-03. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Just when you think he's already lost his last marble, he throws out another one. If this won't stop the media from taking him seriously, nothing will. user:-SA-

The latter option is more likely: nothing will, because nothing is "serious" in the infotainment biz. Black-and-white worldviews and extremist, frothing soundbites sell ad time. They're good for business. It's why people like Thompson, Springer, Coulter, and O'Reilly aren't working at car washes, AMSCOTs, and Checkers'. Hatred and venom are entertainment. Kasreyn 02:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This guy isn't going to go down easily, meaning he'll cause as much disruption as he can before something or someone shuts his power function off, like telling him to stop while he's ahead for example. A walking tank that can't be slowed down oddly enough. That's for sure. 24.188.203.181 22:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Another SLAPP injunction against him might just do the trick. Raul654 20:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not appropriate. Using the law as a blunt instrument to silence someone is always wrong, even with someone as misguided and hateful as Thompson. Freedom of expression includes even those, like Thompson, who only want to spray venom and lay blame rather than solving problems. In a sane world, where people actually bothered to educate themselves, Thompson's grandstanding nonsense statements would be laughed to silence everywhere he went. It's a sad statement of how uneducated and credulous journalists and the public are, that he is actually given airtime as if he made sense. Kasreyn 02:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Normally I'd agree, but I've done research. If the ESA wanted, they have an estimated 130 counts of Liebel in print that he could be hit with. I think shutting him up with a Slapp complaint might be letting him off easy by comparison! But thats just my opinion.

[edit] Do we really need this line?

Thompson hopes retailers end up in court so often, that they will choose to stop selling violent games altogether.[1]

I know he said it, but the line is completely out of place where it is, and is just inciting a POV. I removed it for now but wanted to open debate.--Tollwutig 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem out of place where it is. I think it should go with his legislation in Lousiana, since that's where he made the quote. Jabrwock 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe down in lobbying?

As reasoning behind his push for legislation to penalize retailers, Thompson has said he hopes retailers end up in court so often, that they will choose to stop selling violent games altogether.[1]

Jabrwock 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with it there but not in the second paragraph. It didn't fit in. Also this should be changed to a quotation so that it lacks POV. --Tollwutig 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading it the entire second paragraph could use work. I am going to take out: "This includes filing lawsuits on behalf of the victims of crimes committed by juveniles allegedly inspired by violent video games and lobbying for legislation restricting distribution of these games." Again doesn't fit in with the introduction of the article and is extraneous. Really the article covers his activities to render this sentence pointless. Not to mention it doesn't work in the paragraph.

So I rewrote the 2nd paragraph. If someone can figure a better way to reword it please do.--Tollwutig 14:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Line was re-added by FatherTime89. I invited him here to discuss the line. I also removed the line. Placing it where it was makes the article POV. I know he said it, but needs to be quoted and placed in the activism subheader if anywhere.--Tollwutig 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well someone did post it in the second paragraph and apparently micheal snow was fine with because it was up there for quite a while. I think it does deserve a place somewhere. Father Time89 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with it being in the article, just not where it was. At the end of that paragraph it just stuck out, didn't read well, and looked like a POV screaming "SEE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO!" I don't mind the statement being in the article but it is not something that really belongs in a summary (which is what the introduction is for). That is a detail, and thus belongs under the appropriate heading. --Tollwutig 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson Inspires Video Game

A freeware game inspired by Thompson called I'm O.K. is available at http://imokgame.com/index.html

The game idea is that after his son is killed by a gamer, his father seeks vengence against the video game industry and others that led to his son's death.


Old news, and it is included sort of in the Modest Proposal section...--Tollwutig 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Criticism Section?

Shouldn't there be one, since there are many critics of his views and his tactics? --165.124.162.170 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

After all this trouble that he's been causing, it should get put up, so long as there's links to back up the criticism, like who's criticising him for example. 24.188.203.181 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this article is nearly POV as it is adding a criticism section would only worsen it. Not to mention it needs some trimming as its getting long again.--Tollwutig 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You people fear litigation too much, many other biographys of high-class political and legal members have criticism sections on their bios, Ann Coulter for one, George Bush is another. A litigation fairy like Jack Thompson requires one as well, considering his is an outspoken member of the Florida legal system on a one man crusade against video games. He has garnered a lot of enemies and criticism alike, and they should be mentioned. This sanitized article makes him look like he's an angel, rather the showing both sides of the equation. - 59.167.36.35 07:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is afraid of litigation, it's just that putting in a 'criticism' section would only invite more non-NPOV edits. -- Desire Campbell 24.222.232.225 17:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the criticism is well sourced and phrased in a NPOV way then it should be perfectly fine. Konman72 07:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"The problem is this article is nearly POV as it is..." - Well, that's inevitable on a JT article. I mean, how many JT-POVs can exist? Everyone seems to have the same one: "Idiot." --Effectively amused, Falos 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there anything on his conflicts with PA and refusal to pay a charity 10,000 dollars if someone made his game?

Having done extensive external research on Thompson's history of litigation, I can say that he would more likely than not threaten litigation (though not proceed with it) if it came to his attention that Wikipedia posted criticism of him and his tactics. Thompson has threatened to sue several individuals and websites in the past, though has only done so in the hopes that fear of legal action will silence his critics; that having been said, though a criticism section might invite people to post about him in a negative fashion, some legitimate (verifiable) information is bound to be posted as well. For that reason, a criticism section should not be ruled out; POV information is bound to be posted when it comes to any individual who seeks to actively antagonize another individual or group, but it does not mean that those individuals should not be allowed to comment about it. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He's already been at it once.. check archive 7 I think, the WP:Office looked at it earlier this year. SirFozzie 07:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen one or two pieces of criticism that do not sink into hyperbole. Jump back into the history to see them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That having been said, we need to add those back into the article, if they can be verified. Thompson may be able to hide behind the law when it comes to copyrighted images, but if we can find relatively unbiased websites with proof of his hypocrisy and criticisms, then we can use them as sources. Unlike Wikipedia, there ARE individuals out there who know that Thompson is mostl full of hot air and hollow threats, and have ignored his bullying tactics.

Here is the straw man criticism article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof? Read any of the hundreds of harassing e-mails he's sent countless people!!

[edit] New photo

[1] Is a good, professional photo. I don't know about licensing, but thought I'd bring it up in case someone wants to fiddle with it. President Lethe 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to email dennis at gamepolitics and see if we can get the source and copyright for some of the pics he has been using for Thompson. There is one I know is most likely public domain as it is Thompson testifying before the LA House committee.--Tollwutig 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I very much prefer this photo. It does look more professional than that old TV picture. It came from Kotaku.com. Heh, notice the receding hairline. :p KungFu-tse 18:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe this was in this article before, but was removed because it was ripped from his self-written book. I can't quite remember the details but it was copyright violation so the picture was reverted to the one you see now. -86.134.68.16 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I sm still showing the tv pic, which is awful... bleh forgot to sign--Tollwutig 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just be careful, we don't want Mr. Thompson to attack us (Wikipedia) and start yelling about copyright infringement. :P Havok (T/C/c) 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's his image at the Lousiana hearings. http://media.2theadvocate.com/images/250*183/leg+video+games+051106.jpg http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/2782806.html?index=1 Jabrwock 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The copyright probably belongs to The Advocate. President Lethe 15:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He just doesn't add up...

"Only hitmen or video gamers shoot people in the face."

Well, what about jealous ex-husbands or wives or employees? What about mentally unstable people?

Take a look at what he's saying: video games make every child a violent killing machine.

Puh-lease. I'm a minor; I play Silent Hill and Halo. Yet, you don't see ME going around shooting random people or mutilating them with a katana, do you?

Yes, there ARE people who have killed, claiming to be inspired by video games. But, compare that number of people to the number of people who PLAY videogames in the USA alone: it's comparing an anthill to a mountain. It's only people with some sort of mental problem that do the killing, usually; the casual gamer doesn't randomly want to shoot people because of a violent game they've played. Video games provide outlets to most people, not training devices!

You're kind of preaching to the choir. I haven't seen any Thompson supporters on this talk page. Besides, it's not really intended for debate about him. (Not that I really have a leg to stand on there, since I've aired my own personal opinions here.) Kasreyn 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson outs Take Two board member

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003049735_policefoundation09m.html

As chairman of the Seattle Police Foundation, Michael Malone has helped raise money for life-saving gear for city cops. He also sits on the board of a software firm that sells blockbuster games in which gamers try to elude police and kill them.

Florida attorney Jack Thompson, who testified in Olympia in 2003 in support of the law, found Malone's name among Take-Two's board members Thursday and sent an e-mail to the Seattle Police Foundation and local media.

Malone cannot take money from Take-Two and "portray himself as a friend of the officers who lay their lives on the line," Thompson said. "I think it's unethical, hypocritical and duplicitous. The Seattle Police Foundation and the men and women they represent should be pretty upset." Jabrwock 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section for any discussion of my recent NPOV edit

Please discuss here if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks! Kasreyn 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I saw they look good. Thanks for cleaning up some of the stuff, particularly my wording on the second paragraph. If you can find somewhere to put in the sentence I removed feel free to do so (see DO WE REALLY NEED THIS LINE). It's always nice to have new people come clean up stuff some of us have been reading for months.--Tollwutig 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Flowers for Jack

'...Thompson rejected this overture and forwarded the flowers to some of his industry foes, with such comments as “Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don’t care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like.”'

I'd just like to take a moment to unerline this.

What an ignorant, arrogant, self-centered little dweeb this man is. A community of people that he has outright attacked and slandered without any logical justification make an absolutely mature, civil and beautiful gesture to approach him and ask him to put the daggers away for just a minute, and his reaction? Throw the (expensive!) goodwill gift into the garbage, right before slinging-off yet more insults and condescension. If he didn't WANT the flowers, he could've at LEAST followed-through on the advice and DONATED them to a local HOSPITAL (...in all hope, perhaps the 'industry opponents' he forwarded them to will have a better appreciation for them).

And HE wants to start throwing-out the accustations of human indecency, anti-social behavior and moral ambiguity? The man needs to arrange a date with his own reflection.


You're not really telling us anything new, but this is Wikipedia so in the article itself we have to keep that Point of View out --Tollwutig 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Being a NPOV format, that part needs to be corrected, since the "Flowers For Jack" article refutes the statement, and there is no link validating it. Anonymous September 6 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree

What degree does he actually have? LL.B., LL.M., J.D., S.J.D.? --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under See Also...

I believe under the See Also section should be a link to Hypocrisy.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.10.143 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 July 2006.

See also: WP:NPOV for why we can't do that. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, correct? Then it would make sense to at least put a link to Internet Troll (but not hypocrisy) under See Also. We cant let point of view get in the way of the facts (that is, the point of view that we must obscure factual references in order to negate the percieved negative point of view towards Jack Thompson). The act of internet trolling is not entirely point of view based, as there are definite criteria one must meet before being classified as an internet troll. Jack Thompsons behavior on GamePolitics can definitely be described as trolling just as a new species of plant may be classified as a vegetable based on certain traits.--void main 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
But the GamePolitics stuff in not verifiable, and if it were sufficiently notable in the context of this article it certainly would be verifiable, wouldn't it? I don't know; I suppose it has as much a place on the See Also list as GamePolitics.com. --Maxamegalon2000 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out the "internet troll" link because Wikipedia has very strict guidelines for biographies of living persons, so without very heavy evidence we can't put anything on here that could possibly be construed as offensive by Jack himself. Konman72 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles that are offensive to a wide scope of people and I'm quite sure Jack finds the very presence of this article offensive. A link to internet troll definitely deserves to be there as much as a GamePolitics link, his acts of trolling are completely verifiable (just go over and see).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.89.55 (talk • contribs).
False! To assume that any or every Internet posting signed "Jack Thompson" belongs to him is obviously flawed, and without some sort of independant verification or coverage, to verify that the postings are his qualifies as original research. Also, please don't sign your comments with a user name that you are not logged in as. --Maxamegalon2000 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Game Politics has and has provided proof of this, but that's not the point. Trolling is subjective and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia any more than labelling some religions cults. Ace of Sevens 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the short description on the trolling page: "An Internet troll makes comments intended to induce an angry response." Seems pretty clear cut to me. In order to be an Internet Troll all one needs to do is to make comments with the intention of getting people annoyed. The act of insulting people and of making fun of suicides are obviously actions designed to incite an angry response. --void main 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can find a reliable source of equal or greater prestige to the ones we're currently using in the artice that says he did that, then by all means add it. Otherwise, you'll have to convince us that the incident is so significant that we should lower our citation standards to include it. I have to say, though, that if it were that significant, a reliable source of equal or greater prestige would have picked it up. --Maxamegalon2000 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's the point. Trolling is a matter of intentions, which are unverifiable. Ace of Sevens 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Along with everything on this article and every single article on the entire Wikipedia? Point out to me a single article that is completely, 100% verifiable and I will be quite surprised. There is very little doubt that Jack Thompsons intentions were definitely to anger the gamers and the people on GamePolitics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Void main (talk • contribs).

To quote Michael Snow above, "If a proposed source is not as good or better than these sources, it must be discussed on the talk page first. Without a strong case to specifically use one and general agreement on its inclusion, a lesser source will not be allowed - no LiveJournal." Yes, every Wikipedia article should be completely, 100% verifiable. This is not the place to argue for or against this policy. And if you find an article that is not as such, feel free to edit it. Also, as Mr. Thompson is a living person, we should be extra careful. --Maxamegalon2000 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As we well know, 100% verifiability is completely impossible, as there is no such thing as a 100% reliable source. If you do not feel that GamePolitics is not even a minutely reliable source, or that perhaps the posts under Jack Thompsons name were somehow typed out by a hyperintelligent household pet sitting at Jacks computer or by someone other than Jack himself then you have a lot of editing ahead of you, perhaps you ought to start with the GamePolitics.com?--void main 08:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this before over and over, please read the Talk Page Archives for a History. It has basically been decided when this article got reworded by MichaelSnow when the article was released from WP:Office that Gamepolitics.com would not be a reliable source, and that the standard for sourcing would be held to the highest possible. Complain if you want but do it to WP:Office. Those of us who monitor the article tend to agree with Snow these days and we obtain sources which are considered verifiable. Luckily Dennis at GP does source a lot of his material so we know where to go hunting. --~~ 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)bleh forgot to sign in Tollwutig

[edit] "shock jock"

I question the objectivity of this phrase; I have heard it used in a disparaging manner. It should be replaced with "radio personality," "radio talk show host" or some other variant. Also, after reading the Stern article and its inclusion of the negative connotation, I am further puzzled by its use in this article.

Varmintx 10:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I concurr - however, this term was used in the page for Howard Stern. I suggest you bring this up in the Howers Stern talk page before making the change here (if not done so already), as other pages on Wikipedia appear to use this term. --Sigma 7 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it more appropriate to describe Stern as he is described in the first sentence of his article, as a "radio and TV personality." That's a more objective and enyclopedic way of describing him. --ElKevbo 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
On the Stern page, it is used in the context that he is called a shock jock not that he is a shock jock. I will go ahead and change it here and I would suggest to it be changed anywhere else it is found.

Varmintx 21:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who originally used the term and I actually like the way the sentence has been reworded. I originally re-wrote the paragraph in order to take out a misplaced sentence. I also mentioned my feelings wouldn't be hurt if someone reworded it as I hate having to make major changes to the main article.--Tollwutig 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videos of the guy?

I've been looking everywhere, google video, you-tube, but I can't find any videos of him on the air. Like that picture of him on the Wiki. Anyone have a video of that interview? I'd really like to see this guy in action.

I don't know of any videos of this guy, altough there is audio. You can search through the archives at gamepolitics.com. I'm pretty sure they still have some of his radio appearance .mp3 out there.--Tollwutig 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a video of him on G4's Attack of the Show here: http://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/blog/AOTB/cat/84/The_Loop.html UnreferencedVariable 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a YouTube of this on Joystiq - better than the one above.
  http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/10/g4-jack-thompson-yell-at-each-other Maluka 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpoints

Not for nothing, but shouldn't there be some sort of counter point in this article. Not along the lines of "He's a nut" or anything, but shouldn't there be some sourced, verified counter points to his statments in the article, that is, if were trying to make it truly encyclopedic, then shouldn't counter views be presented as well, or is Wikipedia to affraid of legal action to put anything that is critical of thompson in the article? Just a thought.

I don't really think it fits since this isn't about his ideas, it is about him, as a person. So we state his ideas and opinions and then link to the articles about those so the people can then read those and decide for themselves. But maybe someone else thinks different. Konman72 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a counter point can only be made if he makes a factual statement that can be contradicted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think your analysis is correct, Konman72. A very brief summary of counterpoints with pointers to further information may be appropriate in some limited cases. But nothing more since this is a biographical article. --ElKevbo 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a biographical article, we don't do counterpoints, as they'd end up POV. Basically we can state his beliefs, and then state that people disagree with him, of course referencing both. If he states something that is false and we can get a referenced quote, and a counterpoint without doing research ourselves then we can put that in.--Tollwutig 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be counterpoints to Thompson and his comments as well. You can't say the article isn't about his ideas, as his ideas are what define him as a person; if he didn't have ideas and forcibly impose them on the rest of society, Thompson would not be notable, and thus would likely not have an article on Wikipedia in the first place. A section for counterpoints would serve much of the same purpose as a criticism section; since we don't regulate criticism on Wikipedia, why should we prevent people from issuing counterpoints that can serve to balance out Thompson's ideas, and possibly prevent bias? --PeanutCheeseBar 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] theflabar.org

Thompson's website has been vandalised in the last few months, i dont think anyone noticed or cared, but it still does contain his "public rant" about his actions against the florida bar, perhaps this should be included on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.36.35 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 2 August 2006.

First off, you need to verify that theflabar.org is Jack Thompson's homepage. While it may be considered "common knowledge" that he wrote the webpage, you need to verify it first. Just remember that the DNS information may not be sufficient - it just means that a person filled in the information to make it look like it came from him. --Sigma 7 01:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson wrote and registered the web page, the DNS information is accurate and JT himself on several occasions boasted about it. The vandalism that's occured is the "douche" theme that's playing on the page when it loads now. - 59.167.25.150 07:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Although we can verify that Thompson registered the DNS of flabar.org, and that it is more than likely his website (it's has tell tale signs of his writing plus his normal lack of formatting on a website. I think the vandalism is too minor of an event to cover in this article. If we covered every bit of vandalism or enraged gamer act to annoy thompson this page would quickly become the size of the rest of wikipedia. --Tollwutig 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be ready for Vandals

Not like i have to mention it on this website, but since Gamepolitics.com just put a new article up about Thompson in Louisianna, they'll start to come in force once the article gets around the web.--Tollwutig 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I take offense to being called a vandal just because the latest new came from Jack HIMSELF.--67.164.215.114 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Um, it's already started, sourced changes to the article is fine. Adding in the opinion of a 14 year old on the man isn't. Thanks to SHANE for protecting the article. --Tollwutig 15:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bully dropped from Xbox

Rockstar has dropped support for the Xbox for Bully, which is now a PS2 exclusive. Keep an eye out for a reputable news site mentioning it. GTA:IV is still coming out for the 360, it just looks like R* is reducing the number of older console titles it's releasing. If the PS3 was out I imagine they would have dropped PS2 support as well... Jabrwock 19:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tivo: Jack going to be on Attack of the Show

Better from the horses' mouth than a 3rd party, eh? Jabrwock 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope. I just added the link to the external links. You can find the debate here. But there's nothing new to report. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 12:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new picture

this artical needs a new picture look at AOTS (hes being interviewed now) that picture looks really outdated 67.35.181.14 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Deuxhero 23:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Letter

"His Excellency Yuri Ushakov Russian Federation Ambassador to the United States Embassy of the Russian Federation 2650 Wisconsin Ave., NW Washington, D.C. Via email and fax to 202-298-5735

Re: Knife Attack in Moscow Synagogue Allegedly Inspired by Violent American Video Game, Postal 2

Dear Ambassador Ushakov:

I am an expert, recognized as such in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, and elsewhere, as to the disturbing nexus between violent video game play and real-world violence.

I have been repeatedly interviewed as to this nexus by the BBC and by major news media in this country.

As you know, a young person in Moscow just went on a knifing spree, allegedly inspired to do so by the incredibly violent PC video game, Postal 2.

In this game, by the way, a player can place his virtual gun into the anus of a cat to use the feline as a silencer. That is how depraved is Vince Desi, the head of the company that makes this game. He is a sociopath.

This game is being distributed around the world by Mr. Desi’s US company, Running with Scissors, whose corporate slogan is “To kill or not to kill? What a stupid question.”

We have had a large number of killings in this country linked by law enforcement to these types of murder simulation games. Our US Defense Department actually uses virtual reality killing simulators like this to break down the inhibition of new recruits to kill, so of course it has this same effect on civilians.

Running with Scissors has recently entered into an arrangement whereby it can distribute its murder simulators via the Internet, thereby bypassing various nations’ restrictions on the distribution of such harmful material to minors. The Russian Federation must stop this practice.

I am a Republican who can tell you that United States President George W. Bush has direct financial ties to the violent video game industry—such as Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., through massive campaign contributions by the political lobbying firm of Blank Rome—so there is a collaboration of sorts between the US government and the violent video game industry to export this dangerous garbage around the globe. In fact, our Defense Department has actually subsidized the creation of some of these virtual reality killing games at an agency known as the Institute for Creative Technologies. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is this program’s chief enthusiast.

I appeared on ABC World News Tonight blowing the whistle on this nonsense, which also extensively involves the Sony Corporation.

Please feel free to contact me for additional information as soon as possible. I think at the very least the Russian Federation should lodge a formal protest with the United States government regarding the importation of Postal 2 and the mayhem at the Moscow synagogue that it may very well have caused.

Regards, Jack Thompson" http://www.myth-games.com/news1003.htm

Jewish leaders soon dismissed this link (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/01/12/jews_demand_russian_action_after_synagogue_attack/) Does this deserve a section in the article?

If any of the major newspapers picks it up, absolutely. I don't know how familiar you are with this article, but we're keeping a pretty high standard for references, and www.myth-games.com is not going to make it. Thanks for bringing it up, though. --Maxamegalon2000 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ambassador Ushakov: I am an expert... I didn't have the "gamer cruelty" in me to force my brain past that. To business, I think this can be considered real material once it's solid. Except we've seen the conspiracy theory before. --Falos 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esq

I picked 100 articles at random from Category:American lawyers and not a single one has appended "Esq" at the end of the name. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes does not seem to support the use of this particular honorific for an American lawyer. I have removed the "Esq". —ptk✰fgs 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

In my assessment, this article clearly meets the guidelines at WP:WIAGA and as such I have passed its nomination as a Good article. It is well-referenced and well-written, and is broad and neutral in its coverage of the topic.

I do think that more images might help to improve it further, although I admit that I am not sure what sort of images might be helpful. It might be possible to condense the "Rap music", "Litigation", and "Activism and lobbying sections" — I am not sure if that level of detail is necessary.

With some more work, this could be a featured article. I would recommend a copy-edit — Wikipedia:Peer review may be a good place to ask. —ptk✰fgs 17:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Having wrote a documentry on the portrail of Videogames in the media I have found the level of detail in this article extremly useful. I beleive that this article should be as much an in depth catolog of the allegations this man has made, as it is a description of the man himself. Thus I beleive that "streamlining" the topic would be a mistake. I also welcome the inclusion of counter arguments, or indications of the mistakes Thompson has made - so long as no bias is shown on behalf of the authors.

[edit] Correction

Because editing has been disabled, I thought I'd point something out. Jack is quoted in this article as stating "Murder simulators are not protected free speech". However, it should also be noted that 7 courts have stated, in writing in Judical ruling that "Games are 1st amendment protected speech, inseperable from there interactive elements" Thats taken from the michigan decision. It might be nice to show that there are those, espcially judges, who disagree with him, rather then giving his ego a blow job by quoting him without counterpoint. After all, how can you claim to be encyclopedic if your only showing his view of something?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.244.227.194 (talk • contribs).

As to the question of how we can be encyclopedic if we're only showing his view, I would point out that the article is about him, and not his views specifically. And as for showing that there are those who disagree with him, I think we do a pretty good job of pointing out where his facts are verifiably countered. His opinions are his opinions, though, and I don't think it's necessary to mention that people disagree with his opinions. Very few opinions are unanimously accepted. But I don't know, that's just me. --Maxamegalon2000 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson seeking a subpoena for an early copy of Bully

[2] He's threatening to go to court if he doesn't get one from his congressman. I think this definitely merits inclusion, but does this mean we should move the Bully paragraph to the litigation section? --Maxamegalon2000 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer Fighting To Ban 'Columbine Simulator'

Thompson, who has also targeted rappers like N.W.A., is seeking a congressional subpoena for an early copy [of Bully]. He said he is prepared to file suit Friday in Miami if he does not gain help from U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican. Jabrwock 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He appears to have filed suit. http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/JT-Bully-complaint.doc We'll need to of course wait until some mainstream news picks it up, or we can get the official suit from court records.--Tollwutig 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well do you think we can still put in the article that he called it a Columbine simulator?Father Time89 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thompson bullies Take-Two Ars Technica 139.142.43.31 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] snipers

Thompson incorrectly predicted that the perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks would be “a teenaged boy, who plays video games” and speculated incorrectly that he “may indeed ride a bicycle to and from his shooting locations, his gun broken down and placed in a backpack while he pedals.”[64] Saying that the shooter, Lee Boyd Malvo, had "trained" on Halo, Thompson later claimed credit for this on The Today Show: “I predicted that the beltway sniper would be a teen-aged boy that trained on a game switched to sniper mode. And three months later, NBC reported that that’s exactly what Malvo did. And Mohammed had him train on the game to suppress his inhibition to kill.”[65][66]

Shouldn't it be pointed out that whether or not you can br trainede off a video game is highly debateable and that Halo has no sniper mode? Also I couldn't find any mention of video games in the main article about the sniper attacks so I need some verification on it.Father Time89 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. Are there any sources that say there's no sniper mode in Halo? --Maxamegalon2000 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it possible to source the game itself, or its manual?
-- 07:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm sourcing the Game Manual itself would kinda be original research, although I think a Prima strategy guide could possibly hold water. Would be an issue to take up with the powers that be. --Tollwutig 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked Michael Snow at his talk page about using the PDF of Jack's Wal-Mart complaint hosted by Ars Technica, so I imagine he'll be popping by at some point. Of course, I'm not sure that a game manual or strategy guide simply not mentioning a sniper mode is the same as saying that there isn't one. That's the tricky part in my eyes - how do you cite something's nonexistance unless someone actually points it out? That is, unless a source says "There is no sniper mode in Halo," I don't think it's going to be usable. --Maxamegalon2000 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're on the right track with your "I don't think it's going to be usable" statement. It's not our job here at Wikipedia to prove or disprove anyone's claims or assertions. We merely document the claims and assertions and, if present, counterclaims and counterassertions (is that a word? It is now!). I understand and to some degree share your frustration. I think this is caused in part by our desire to see Wikipedia always up-to-the-minute when it simply takes time for many things to filter through our collective consciousness and be properly weighed by society and the relevant content experts. --ElKevbo 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I added a little note at the paragraph saying John Muhammad was a gulf war vet, and I found a very good source for it (CNN) Father Time89 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool , and thanks.--69.132.103.165 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)didn't sign in Tollwutig

[edit] Question

Maxamegalon reverted my edit stating he filed suit to get an early copy of Bully, because Gamespot, is not a reliable source. Can anyone tell me why it isn't? On face value, it seems to meet the criteria of WP:RS. Ramsquire 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has been through WP:OFFICE scrutiny, since then it has been held to the highest standards for sourcing. Michael Snow rewrote the article using very strict criteria for sourcing. Since then this article has and the regular authors have held it to the same strict criteria. If you want look at the top of the discussion page under the New Article section for Michael Snow's notes. That being said, Gamespot for in this instance is NOT considered a reputable mainstream source. Despite how you feel about this it does not pass the tough criteria this article will be subjected to. --Tollwutig 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I also removed your Arstechnica source as not reliable. Yeah I know it's a copy of the suit filed but the source of the copy is not considered reliable by the standards we hold this article to. If you want to include this, I suggest looking it up from a reputable source, or the court documents from the filing itself. Not to mention the .pdf link went invalid.--Tollwutig 15:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Nevermind, I just won't contribute here. If the link is bad, that's one thing. But if you are taking out accurate information because it's not from a source that Michael Snow likes, then I'll just let Michael Snow have his article. I guess there's been some history of vandalism here and it's totally fine to be hypersensitive, but I don't need the grief. Mr. Thompson just isn't that important. Ramsquire 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of vandalism; it's a matter of Jack Thompson threatening a lawsuit against Wikipedia, and with potentially legitimate grounds to do so. Really, all we're doing is following Wikipedia policies, just a bit more closely than other articles do. And don't forget, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Actually, the link still works for me. --Maxamegalon2000 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know that. I wasn't trying to get anyone in trouble. I came across the info, thought it was important to add to the article. But if a copy of his verified petition that was actually filed in a Florida court can't get into an article because the New York Times didn't provide the link, then it makes contribution costly and difficult. Ramsquire 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's OK; we really need to make a page somewhere that explains the situation for newcomers to the article. There have been users who have contributed to the article for weeks without knowing what the situation was. Does anyone know if there is a way to get the documents directly from the courts? If so, the question then becomes: If it wasn't covered by a reputable source, is it still noteworthy? We don't have a conclusion to Thompson's Florida Bar lawsuit, which I understand has been withdrawn or something like that. --Maxamegalon2000 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there does need to be an explanation of the history of this article and why it is treated differently than other articles. Such an explanation would necessarily include an explanation of Michael Snow and why he legitimately guards this page, a situation that can easily be mistaken for ownership.
With respect to the court document in question: I do think that anytime Wikipedia references an original source it puts on shaky ground as it's very easy to stray into original research. Personally, I think it's okay if done in moderation and with very specific intent, particularly in biographies where the source is used to verify or document basic biographical facts. --ElKevbo 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can do a template like the one at the top of the Ann Coulter page, that blocks new users from editing, and then place a "sticky" at the top of the talk page, explaining what is going on here.Ramsquire 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has had that up before. However they are usually placed as a response to vanadalism not to stop it before it happens. --Edgelord 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Law Preliminarily Enjoined

Here is a link for someone to write up the Lousiana Law which Thompson drafted being enjoined: http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060825/APA/608250712 and from what can be considered a reputable source too. --Tollwutig 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the link. --Maxamegalon2000 19:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Edited it to be factual. There is only a preliminary injuction right now, to be considered unconstitutional it'd have to be a permanent injunction. --69.132.103.165 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC) didn't sign in. Tollwutig
Thank God for common sense Judges like James Brady standing against crap laws like this. Jack Thompson needs to go away. --Trajan, 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandal Lock until mid October?

I know the idea is not to leave up permanent locks but the web is going to cover Thompson a lot and everytime someone puts a new article somewhere the Vandals flood in. Ideas anyone? I think after the Louisiana Law battle is over, and Bully is released things will slow down.--Tollwutig 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that will work. Locks are used to prevent vandalism when it happens not to stop potential vanadaism. --My old username 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is everytime a new story comes out of Lousiana or about Bully there is a new spurt of vandalism which results in a temporary lock just about every time. You can even follow when Joystiq or Gamepolitics covers one of those stories by looking at the History of the vandalism.--70.10.88.141 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This issue is taken care of by adding the equivalant of the Slashdotted tag. This tag, as you know, causes people that are already reviewing high-vandalism chance articles to simply drop by the JT article and supress any vandalism attempts. There may also be another page where it lists recent changes from articles tagged in this manner (of if there isn't, it's a very good idea.) --32.60.78.135 00:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection is never supposed to be used to pre-empt possible vandalism unless we have an extrodinary case like George W. Bush (the most heavily edited and vandalized article ever). Hbdragon88 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? Not in my opinion!

This article is POV in certain sections, and contains inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The biggest problem is the lack of linked references. There are numerous cases, but I suspect that this may be do to the work of a vandal. Aside from that, here are some problems I have noticed that keep this article from being POV.

Some articles are simply not available online without a subscription to LexisNexis or some similar service, and many of the links are not to the full text of the articles anyway. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thompson admits to having a “colorful disciplinary history” as an attorney."

--This is a blatant misrepresntation; Thompson did not admit it. The term was someone else's description of his history. Proof: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:6_aqGnTnYKkJ:www.gamepolitics.com/images/moore.doc+%22Jack+thompson%22+%22colorful+disciplinary+history%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

This is not the article cited. The article cited reads: "Thompson, who has appeared twice on "60 Minutes" rebuking the games and admits to having a "colorful disciplinary history" as a Florida attorney, has the support of Rep. Jay Love, R-Montgomery, whose bill that would have made it illegal for minors to buy cop-killing games died in the Alabama Legislature this year." --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Luke Skyywalker Records, the company of 2 Live Crew’s Luther Campbell, had previously released a record supporting Reno in her race against Thompson."

--There is no source cited that verifies this statement.

I have added one. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"In his campaign, Thompson cast himself as a Batman-like character, a solitary figure helping law enforcement when it was unable to protect the public on its own. He portrayed 2 Live Crew frontman Luther Campbell not as Luke Skyywalker (his stage name), but as the Joker “peddling obscenity to children.”"

--Jack Thompson did not make this comparison; the person who wrote the sourced article made the comparison. Stating opinions as facts are not consistent with NPOV stances.

Though I could not find a full copy of this source, I found multiple and more detailed sources that claimed that Thompson went as far as to send a copy of his driver's license to officials with a picture of Batman on it. I'm concerned that maybe you haven't been reading the full text of the sources that you claim do not coincide with the article. On this one, at least, your claim appears to be way off. Thompson even wore a Batman watch and collected Batman memorabilia. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As someone who knows nothing of Jack Thompson, trying to learn about him through Wikipedia, I am relying mostly on the online sources cited for the time being. I have found exceprts of the offline sources, but admit that they are only excerpts. Thank you for adding the extra sources for clarification.Anonymous September 8 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if that sounded too harsh. I actually didn't know that he collected Batman memorabilia either. It's important to remember that sometimes the really good sources, which we have been trying to use exclusively in this article, are not online in full. --Maxamegalon2000 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thompson also said, "the "social commentary" on this album is akin to a sociopath's discharging his AK-47 into a crowded schoolyard, with the machine gun bursts interrupted by Pee Wee Herman's views on politics.""

--It appears that Thompson was not the one who made this statement, according to the source cited. The source is vague on who actually made the comment (it seems to me to be Robert Perry who made it), and until a source accurately attributes this statement to Thompson, this should be removed from the article.

Again, I have read the entire article, and the quote is correctly attributed to Thompson. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I am having trouble with the part of the source cited which reads, "In their own words:", followed by the statement in question. Who's words were they? Why is this just accredited to Jack, rather than being a statement which Jack and others were involved with, if he was actually involved? Is there something in the source I'm missing?Anonymous September 8 2006 (UTC)
The full article is much more clear. There are some introductory paragraphs, and then each person quoted gives a few paragraphs. Thompson's quote is preceded by "Jack Thompson:" and goes for a few paragraphs before "Whatever the next person's name was:". I'm exerpting this quote because it was the one used in the abstract that we're linking to. So, yes, the full text makes it very clear that the words are Thompson's. --Maxamegalon2000 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thompson was looking to have Time Warner, then being criticized for promoting the Ice-T song “Cop Killer,” prosecuted for federal and state crimes such as sedition, incitement to riot, and “advocating overthrow of government” by distributing material that, in Thompson's view, advocated the killing of police officers."

--The actual quote fom the source is, "advocating overthrow of government ... by the assassination of any officer of such government." Cherry-picking information to fit a viewpoint is not consistent with NPOV stances.

The entire paragraph reads as follows: "And in a far-right corner, the Washington-based Freedom Alliance, headed by former Reagan administration aide Oliver North. Last week the group hired Jack Thompson, the Florida attorney best known for his relentless pursuit of obscenity charges against 2 Live Crew and retailers of that group's albums. Thompson is attempting to have charges brought against Time Warner based on federal laws against "seditious conspiracy" and "advocating overthrow of government ... by the assassination of any officer of such government." Both are felonies punishable by 20 years in jail and a $ 20,000 fine. Thompson says the latter law targets anyone -- Time Warner included -- distributing material advocating "the killing of any police officer at either the state or local level, and it needn't be any specific police officer." He says he feels that "Cop Killer" violates not only federal but state statutes (usually for criminal anarchy, incitement to riot and sedition). Thompson holds that such speech is not protected by the First Amendment."
I find the summary to be accurate. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"He also went after MTV’s advertisers and urged the U.S. Army to pull recruiting commercials, citing the Army’s recruitment of women and problems with sexual harassment scandals."

--It should also be mentioned that his problem with the recruitment commercials was that they were aired in conjuction with MTV programs that objectified women, which in his opinion, made the Army appear to be condoning such actions in its own institution; rather than specifically the problems associated with Army scandals. This was mentioned in the same cited source, and should not be ommitted from the article. Again, cherry-picking information to fit a viewpoint is not consistent with NPOV stances.

Um, this is mentioned in the previous sentence. I don't think we need to make the exact same point in consecutive sentences. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"However it should be noted that John Muhammad was a gulf war veteran and earned a expert marksmanship badge in the U.S. army."

--The fact that Muhammad was a war veteran does not go against the Halo training accusation, as this statement implies by "However, it should be noted"; it could just as easily be stated that Muhammad's military experience led him to believe the gaming was consistent with the training. The phrase beginning that sentence should be removed, as it is supporting a POV, and the sentence should start with, "John Muhammad was a..."

I believe that the phrase "it should be noted" does not imply any inconsistency with the Halo training accusation, only that it literally should be noted that Muhammad was a war veteran. Maybe I don't understand your concern; certainly you are not claiming that only someone against Thompson would believe that this should be noted? --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problem was really with the word, "However", which is generally used to refute. "You have a point, however..." "The sky looks blue, however..." I lumped "it should be noted" with it unecessarily; that part is fine. However, "However" should be removed. Anonymous September 8 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Sounds reasonable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed "should be noted" as well; it is inappropriate to editorially advise the reader to take note of specific points which modify others. This crosses the line from presenting others' arguments, which is good, into WP making its own arguments, which is POV. Kasreyn 19:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thompson rejected this overture and forwarded the flowers to some of his industry foes, with such comments as “Discard them along with the decency you discarded long ago. I really don’t care. Grind them up and smoke them if you like.”"

--This is disputed in the "Flowers For Jack" Wikipedia article.

I have reread the article cited, and the quote is accurate. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Flowers For Jack" article reads, "Electronic Gaming Monthly confirmed with Blank Rome in their August 2006 issue that they did not receive any of the flowers." One article says he had the delivery redirected, one says he merely said he would, but ultimately didn't. They can't both be right...? Anonymous September 8 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say about that, other than that EGM is not an acceptable source for this article, and that the source being used here asserts that Thompson did in fact forward the flowers. I don't know which source is true, but I think the one we're using here is certainly the more reputable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"In 1999, Thompson represented the parents of Bryce Kilduff, an 11-year old boy who committed suicide by hanging himself. Allegedly this was in imitation of Kenny, a character from the Comedy Central series South Park, which Bryce, according to his parents, had never watched."

--Since the source is not linked, this statement is confusing and unverifiable. Who made the allegation, Thompson or the parents? The context leads one to believe it is Thompson's allegation, and leading by context without verification is not consistent with NPOV stances.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it POV, because there is no "allegation", and Thompson certainly agrees with the theory. I have made the article more clear, however. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That's much clearer. Anonymous September 8 2006 (UTC)

"Curiously, he later spoke in defense of Stern during the latter’s legal dispute with CBS over promoting Sirius on-air before his switch to satellite radio."

--Use of the word "Curiously" to start the sentence is presenting a POV.

I agree. --Maxamegalon2000 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(I've accidentally removed a section of this Talk page dealing with the references, and my noob-ilities are not capable of restoring it. I would appreciate it if someone who knows what they're doing could correct my error, and I apologize to the Wiki-community.)Anonymous September 7 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They obviously have helped to improve the article, which I think is very close to Featured Article status. Fresh eyes often catch things that people who have been working on the article for a longer amount of time don't catch or don't question. --Maxamegalon2000 20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

1) Did Whacko Jacko charge files against any more chavs, other than 2 Live crew? 2) So, since James here threatened to sue, we can't revert back to the old page?

[edit] Religious Intolerance

Perhaps a little too opinionated a title?

Anyhow I beleive that a cirtain quote should be added to jacks profile...

[source:http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004042112.html]

"The Bible doesn't promote killing innocent people," Thompson said. "Grand Theft Auto does. Islam does."

When asked to elaberate -

"Islam promotes the killing of innocent people," Thompson said. "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."

Firstly here is an extract from the bible disproving this:

Deuteronomy 13:7-11: “If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying. “Let us go and serve other gods,” … you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.”

And a counter point where 2 lawyers tried to ban the Bible from schools:

"Two lawyers said that they had written to German Family Minister Christine Bergmann asking her to officially class the Bible among books considered dangerous for children because of its violent content.

The Holy Book contains passages of "a gruesomeness difficult to exceed" which are glorified as the will of God, the Bavarian lawyers Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel said in their submission to the minister on behalf of "some parents of minors." "It preaches genocide, racism, enmity towards Jews, gruesome executions for adulterers and homosexuals, the murder of one's own children and many other perversities," Sailer and Hetzel said. The book should therefore be kept on the "not for children" list so long as the "bloodthirsty and human rights-violating passages" were not removed.

A spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Church in Munich, Adelheid Utters-Adam, described the demand as absurd. If the Bible should be put on such a list, then so should every history book and practically every newspaper edition, she said."

Source: http://countdown.org/end/apostasy_05.htm#apo_vatican_eus_ungodly (5th entry downwards) On the surface it seems Off Topic but considering the majority of Mr Thompsons alegations are coupled with religious backing (Including posting on a tribute to a gamer that commited suicide: "There is a void in every heart. You can fill it up with the things of God, or the things not of God. This unfortunate soul chose to fill it up with combat games." (Source: http://game-eaters.blogspot.com/2006/01/now-jack-targets-mgs-how-low-can-he.html)

Anyhow please advise - is it worth adding just the quote or include evidence that it is false. This is the first time I have ever written for Wikipedia so please go easy on me :)

Well, his quotes certainly belong here, but I don't think the argument against him does.. The article is fairly borderline as is..--Vercalos 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And do go farther, it certainly seems he's anti-islamic, but he doesn't seem to be anti-semitic.

If we're going to include something as incendiary as these words, we'll honestly need better sources than random blogs. --Keyne 23:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004042112.html a random blog? I thought that it was the origional article? Targetweightneo 00:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a random blog, but it's pretty obvious from the rest of the article that the author is expressing a point of view about Thompson. Also, I think we can all agree that the source is not of the same caliber as the rest of the sources we are using. --Maxamegalon2000 02:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was originally from the sun-times or something. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its from the Sun-Sentinel, originally at this url. Since it's an older story it's been moved to their hard to search archive.
Here is the archive link. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is the full citation: Mayo, Michael (2004-04-18). Puritanical Intolerance is Scarier than Stern Himself. Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2004-05-02. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do sources have to be free to view or can preimum rate sources be used? Targetweightneo 07:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Premium sources may be used, so long as they are reliable. For instance, many medical articles prefer information from PubMed, which only has abstracts available for public consumption. There is little doubt Thompson has said things such as the above, the problem usually comes when attempting to find a good, high-quality reliable source to avoid claims of libel, such as were made in the past. High standards and all that jazz (makes for a better article, too!) --Keyne 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
So if the source is changed to that of the sun sentinel would this be allowed to be published (removing the first paragraph about the suicide of Mitch)
The better source would help, yes. It still should be rewritten (and possibly incorporated into somewhere else in the article) to make better use of the source/material, though. It seems a tad out of place in its former incarnation and took quite a bit more space than it could/should have, without saying terribly much at all. (obviously, just my opinion) --Keyne 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, I guess we need to figure out where we can put this. I'm thinking the only place it could go is the "Other Activities" section. Should we make a new paragraph there? Is there any other way to incorporate this into the article? --Maxamegalon2000 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, its just Jack uses religion so much in his arguments that it seemed apropriate. I dont beleive the fact that he is cristain is mentioned in the page 84.187.228.29 12:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JT press release titled "Re: Corporate Terrorism in and from Manhattan"

Text removed. --Maxamegalon2000 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Source

Not sure if the article authors can use this in any way, but I felt it should be added to the talk page as potential material.
Wow. Well, we'd have wait for some news agency to pick up the story. Obviously, we can't confirm that comments written at Joystiq are actually by him, so we can't use it. But thanks for letting us know to look for it. --Maxamegalon2000 02:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks enough like his prose to me, but that doesn't count for much. Joystiq can confirm to a degree, such as if the email address used was connected to him. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, its just Jack uses religion so much in his arguments that it seemed apropriate. I dont beleive the fact that he is cristain is mentioned in the page 84.187.228.29 12:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GUILTY

THOMPSON IS GUILTY OF:

1. SLANDER 2. LIBEL 3. CRIMINAL HARASSMENT

WHY IS THIS NOT IN HIS ARTICLE???

Because it's original research and not verifiable. --Maxamegalon2000 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly depite this being common beleif amognst many people - it is still only a point of view and not a fact. The best that can be added is if somone has filed a law suit against Jack for these reasons Targetweightneo 07:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, like "has been guilty of" or "shoulda been guilty of"? If these charges have run and passed, they oughta be around. Which I doubt, as (A) He's a lawyer and should know where dangerous territory is, and (B) He's a lawyer, and should be able to dodge better than the usual Joe. --Falos 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sims 2 contains full frontal nudity." He said it himself, on live TV. If I said that, I could be sued. Why not him?

[edit] New Lawsuit in Albuquerque

http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1526&Itemid=2

Miami attorney Jack Thompson today was expected to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Cody Posey and the makers of "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" saying the video game taught Posey how to fire a weapon and turned him into an "extraordinarily effective" killer Jabrwock 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used the other newspaper's article, which has been more recently updated. I also added a line from the article to the section on his relationship with the industry and gamers. --Maxamegalon2000 02:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it HAS to be said that the Codey was severely abused by his parents and that the night before the trial his father demanded he have sex with his step mother and when he refused his father burnt him with a heated rod.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Father Time89 (talk • contribs).

I agree, but I think we can only include it if a source mentions it in relation to this lawsuit. We do have a link to the article on Cody, so if you want to vent some frustration, feel free to improve that article. --Maxamegalon2000 02:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosecutor or Defense Attorney?

I've skimmed through the article twice, but I don't see anything on which one he is. Could anyone clear this up for me?

J-Guy 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither. He's a civil litigator. Ace of Sevens 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson taking on a golf course?

City says Biltmore golf course is below par

I don't think this is close to notable enough for inclusion in the article, but I thought I'd just mention it here in case he decides to sue someone about it. --Maxamegalon2000 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Golf is a murder simulator! It trains people to hit things with clubs, with power and accuracy. First they hit golf balls; next they'll be clubbing people to death. Ban the sport now! *Dan T.* 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flowers for Jack link

I am wondering how we can make this article more consistent with the Flowers for Jack article that it links to. The more I look at it, the more I wonder if the link to that article should be removed until the Flowers for Jack article is completely made over. In the "Flowers for Jack" article, some of the information is sourced to chat forums where people claim they got emails from Jack. That is unverifiable, to say the least. About half of the article is made up of a news article which refers to chat forum posts made by Jack Thomspon. If you follows its sources, you'll see that many on that forum do not even believe that the poster is actually Thompson. Through my previous discussions regarding this article, I know that painstaking effort was put into finding the best sources to cite. It seems that linking to such a suspicious article isn't going to reflect well on this article. Any thoughts? Anonymous September 30 2006 (UTC)

Really I think Flowers for Jack could just be reduced to a minor event in the Jack Thompson article. While an amusing event it wasn't as big as the Penny-Arcade fiasco and I've never felt it deserves a separate article, esp with as little good sourcing that is available.--Tollwutig
I've cleaned up the "Flowers for Jack" article. Reasons for the changes I've made are in the "talk" section of that article. Anonymous October 13 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson back in court with Neil Rogers?

It's just a brief mention on GamePolitics.com, but it says that Thompson claims he's back in court with Neil Rogers, and just recently attended a hearing. Can anyone with access to court documents in Florida verify this? 139.142.43.31 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson receives way too much attention than it is good for his ego or the industry

Let's remove all his pictures. If people don't know what he looks like he'll stop molesting the rest of the world because his ego won't be able to deal with being unknown.

Just a proposal.


[edit] Miami court orders review of Bully, Thompson says Yay

Washington Post Miami Herald Jabrwock 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it's just a web journal, but it's a heads up to keep an eye out for the proper news sources. The judge ruled that Bully is ok for teens, told JT to shush (JT insisted HE had to be able to play the game), and said JT could appeal if he wanted to, which JT declined. Jabrwock 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What grounds do courts in Miami or anywhere else in the U.S. have to even consider prior-restraint censorship of a game? That sounds unconstitutional to me. *Dan T.* 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's obscene, incitement to riot, or a state secret, they have grounds. But other than that, none. Thompson was trying to go the "it's dangerous to health" route. Jabrwock 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Their is a file dump of Jacks documents including his (expected) reaction to the NRO being denied at game Politics:I beleive the letter to the Judge is the Most entertaining. Also my reaction to the verdict w0000t!!

[edit] Public Nuisance complaint

Seeing as how he actually went through with filing the public nuisance suit, shouldn't this be under litigation? Jabrwock 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive point

This page is >64KB. Recommending Archive12. --32.60.78.135 06:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worth noting?

I am new to this but is it worth notingf that following his tirades against the sims 2 several memebrs of the online modding community emailed him explaining the nature of the game and the fact that nay nudity was not photorealistic. They recieved rude responses (if any) one of which said "I refuse to be intimidated by a group of gaming thugs" and antoher one of which threatened to sue the sender, despite the fact that the sent email was not in any way rude or threatening.

I think we mention Thompson's objections to The Sims 2 briefly in the article. I recommend you take a look at the types of sources we're using in the article; they're probably a bit more respectable than what you may see in other articles. If you can find a source as reputable as the ones we're using that says what you've written here, feel free to add it to the article, or tell us here what the source is, and someone else can add it. Note, however, that gaming sites are not appropriate sources for this article, seeing as how they are usually pretty biased against Thompson. --Maxamegalon2000 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias? Are you kidding me? CUT IT WITH THE SUBJECTIVISM!!!

[edit] Take2 considers filing contempt of court order on JT

Its about time someone stood up and fought back against this idiot's slander, libel, harassment, and flat out LIES!!

While your views are respected and appreciated, Wikipedia isn't really a forum, so please take such discussions elsewhere.--Vercalos 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

^^True, but it's worthy of being added to the article http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11370

Searched for "show cause" "Jack Thompson" and found quite a few articles. It's also on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/1815239 SirFozzie 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but they all appear to be gaming websites, which are not appropriate sources for this article. --Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
even when they quote [Thompson himself?] "The motion to show cause filed by defendant Take-Two is a transparent, panicked attempt to cover up the misconduct, including the fraudulent misrepresentations to the public and to this Court, by its employees and its counsel, Blank Rome," Thompson said in an e-mail.

"If this court in any fashion proceeds toward issuing a show cause order, given its utter baselessness and the bad faith goo in which it slithers, then Thompson will add whatever judge should do so as a defendant in the aforementioned federal civil rights action," he said, referring to the case he brought to halt Bully's sale. (Emphasis in the original.) "Plaintiff has seen arbitrariness from judges before in his thirty years of practicing law, but nothing close to this. If the federal judiciary must restrain this Court and punish it, then so be it." SirFozzie 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, GameSpot isn't considered a reputable source either. The way I see it, if anything actually happens, it'll certainly be covered by at least one newspaper, and if nothing happens, it isn't notable enough to mention. At this point, all the sources are quoting GamePolitics.com; I think we can safely wait until Wednesday and see if anything actually occurs. --Maxamegalon2000 05:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the paragraphs, but not the disputed info, hopefully someone else picks it up. SirFozzie 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Maxamegalon2000, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you that gaming sites cannot be used as sources; Thompsons antics will occasionally make the media, and when they do, the media doesn't often do enough background research to refute him. The end result is that they don't directly condone or condemn him, and viewers and readers without the inclination to do further research on the subject are misinformed.
Despite whether or not gaming sites have a bias towards Thompson, many of them actually do research on his past antics, and often link to the sources. So, while the sites may or may not be inherently biased based on their basis of being game sites, they cannot be delisted unless you intend to go to the website and reproduce proof and sources on Wikipedia. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that everyone who wishes to continue this discussion take a look at the archives for this talk page. The March 2006 one is a good place to start. I'd like to remind everyone that User:Michael Snow represents WP:OFFICE in this matter, and that, ultimately, he is the one who gets final say on many of these issues. That being said, PeanutCheeseBar, I have no idea what your last sentence means. --Maxamegalon2000 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In essence, the last sentence means "Don't delete links to game sites regardless of bias, if the research they do and the sources they link to are unbiased. Instead, create links to those sources on Wikipedia, and THEN remove the gaming site, if it MUST be done." --PeanutCheeseBar 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Thompson_%28attorney%29_archive12_a7f6.html"