Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Which picture?

Last night the picture was changed once again to the color over the B/W one, because the B/W was removed for not having a reference. I'm not fully up to date on wiki policy on this, nor how to permanently fix it, but if someone with more knowledge about such things can, is it possible to revert back to the B/W picture? It really does look much better. SanderJK 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection to the current (color) photo is that it's such a low quality image. It's low resolution and very unprofessional-looking, IMHO. I'd rather go without a picture than the shitty color one there now. --ElKevbo 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the black and white image was deleted since it did not contain source or copyright information. For more information on the requirements for images, see the image use policy. You might also find how to upload images and the full list of image licensing tags helpful. If a better picture can be found that is released under a free license, feel free to upload it, or I'd be happy to help explain the process. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand why we removed the b&w photo. I just don't like the one we currently have. :) --ElKevbo 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I did a little looking around and I'm having a difficult time finding anything for Jack Thompson thats under a free license. Given the number of parody photos I found of him, I can understand why he wouldn't have released one, so I doubt that we are going to be able to go that route. However, I did find two images[1] [2] that are better quality than the screenshot and I believe a fair-use case could be made for either image. The first was a photo used to promote his profile with Ambassador Agency (a firm who hires out speakers), is smaller than the orginal photo (and could probably be cropped further) and certainly shouldn't do anything to dilute his public image. The second is the cover of his book, which would probably be better in an article about his book as the fair-use claim would be more reasonable. In any case, my vote would be for the first image - any other thoughts? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
That first photo a really great find, Jareth. I think we may have decided against using the book cover earlier. I don't know the fair-use rules at all, but if the Ambassador Agency photo is for promotional purposes, doesn't that put us on good footing? At the very least, it's better in quality than the TV news screenshot, which I'm not a big fan of. --Maxamegalon2000 03:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the first photo has my vote, over both of the others we've been using. Shows him pretty much as he looks now and is nice quality even for it's size. Good find.--Ryan Acheson 12:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to put up a respectable picture, but apparently I didn't do something right. If someone else knows better, the original source for the B&W photo is here. --Keyne 12:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of statements during Kansas TV interview?

Kansas TV April 26, 2006 http://www.ksnw.com/news/stories/12495578.html http://www.ksnw.com/news/stories/video/12495578.html

He says the same can be said for countless other suspects including the Columbine shooters. That’s why, when Thompson saw what happened in Riverton, he says he immediately contacted authorities and gave them an affidavit telling them his knowledge about video games.

"They took that affidavit and went to the homes of some of the suspects and found some of the games I suggested they would find," said Thompson.

Thompson said authorities found Ghost Recon and other tactical fighter games. The Attorney General’s Office, which is overseeing the investigation, will not comment on any evidence or Jack Thompson’s involvement in the case.

Stars & Stripes May 5, 2006 (Middle east edition pg 14) (it's an AP story) http://estripes.osd.mil/bin/download.php?filename=MID20505&edition=mideast

According to one of the boys' mothers, they used a warrant aimed at "violent video games", and seized "Legend of Zelda", two Spiderman games, and a copy of "Quicken".

Whoops, forgot to sign it. :) Jabrwock 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So does this minimal involvement go in the article somewhere? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've found the article on the AP newswire via LexisNexis, so if we want to include it we can cite this AP source. [1] I don't know if it's important enough, though. I knew about the interview but didn't add it before, but seeing as his account conflicts with other national reports, that could warrant a brief mention. --Maxamegalon2000 00:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't it's important enough to include here. This is already a pretty long article and I just think it would really add much. If you disagree, go ahead and throw something out there to see if it sticks. Or propose a draft here in Talk. --ElKevbo 01:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this should only be cited if it is indicative of a pattern of falsehoods. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That could easily (but not necessarily) wander into Original Research. --ElKevbo 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There's also the question of the trustworthiness of the mother. Yeah, I think we should wait until he lies on national television and the police contradict him. -- Maxamegalon2000 04:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll keep an eye out to see what the police say they found. Which likely won't be for a while. Jabrwock 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Update

I'm not one for writing up encylcopedic articles; but I would really like JT's latest adventure, his critisism for Bethesda's 'Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion', featured in this article. The link to work with is; http://gamesfirst.com/?id=1280 Anyone with any talent for writing up articles, I ask of you to do so. 86.137.130.171 11:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what we can do with this. We just have to hope he goes on a reputable news show and does something stupid that we can talk about that doesn't involve original research. It's pretty amusing to read that he doesn't realise that 25 to Life is out yet, and to see that he thinks the nudity mod in Oblivion was a 'developer distributed code'. What really needs to happen, is a game company needs to sue him for libel for making such demonstratably false and unsubstantiated claims, but unfortunately wikipedia doesn't like it when we or anyone else sets out to prove something. If someone writes an article in the new york times proving something, or a court case proves someting, we'll be all over it. Thanks for the link though, it made an enjoyable read.--Ryan Acheson 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There actually is some nuance in the nudity code for Oblivion, since it was just an unlocked feature of the game, and the mod that unlocked it was heavily discussed and linked too on the bethesda forums. What it basicly did was remove the bra that the female chars all wear. Nothing to get upset about, of course. Not even as bad as dry-humping ;) SanderJK 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes of course, this isnt a valid source is it? Gah. IanC 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Plus, there is no "code" to unlock in like JT says. It's a mod that renames a mesh file so the bra gets removed. No codes, nothing that you can unlock without "hacking" the game. ZuljinRaynor

Reference for PD response

A person requested a reference for the PD's response. This may be acceptable - it's semi-reliable although it may be a little lopsided: http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=407767&page=0

The original link can work well enough, although it doesn't really contain info about the reply. --Sigma 7 04:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just a Gamespot mirror, so it's not acceptable. --Maxamegalon2000 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Just for fun, i've asked this about ten times now, why is gamespot not a valid source? Please quote wikipedia rules on this, because i cannot find them. SanderJK 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to ask User:Michael Snow. He explains it better than I do. --Maxamegalon2000 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think what you're looking for is the criteria on reliable sources. Its been discussed extensively and Gamespot does not meet the criteria. Typically for anything encyclopedia worthy, other sources can be found. There is further discussion in the archives here. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been part in those discussions, and can find no reason why they would be disallowed. The only argument in previous archive that is valid is that they are not a "mainstream media" which is debatable. If 4 million gamers read an article, is it less mainstream then an article in a single local newspaper (we have an entire paragraph based on a single local newspaper). Not to mention that i can see no reference to "mainstream media" or something similar in the rules. I've read once again through those links (source and verifiability), it does not exclude them as a valid source in any way i can see. Can you please tell me specificly, by which verifiability or source rule the gamespot news section is not an acceptable source for wikipedia article. SanderJK 09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a debate about what is "mainstream". Being a reputable source is far more important than being a mainstream one. The problems with GameSpot as a source in this context include, among other things, that it's a niche site focused more on product reviews and forums than news, and its focus makes it inherently hostile to Thompson. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources asks: "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" That certainly applies to GameSpot, and is a good reason to be leery of using it as a source here.

In any case, the article is quite long enough already with the sources used, none of which are as dubious as GameSpot when it comes to this subject. We don't need to turn this into a blow-by-blow account of A Modest Video Game Proposal, which has its own (fairly lengthy) article. Instead of overburdening this article with every last detail, perhaps you could look to improving the quality of the related articles that already cover these details. --Michael Snow 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not deny that they have a focus group, and that they would default to take a stance opposite to Thompson. However, the New York Times takes a default opposite stance against the Bush government, does anything they report on Bush automaticly autoexclude from the article? Very easily no, and the next line in the rules is: "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it,". I'm not even trying to add this, i think it's irrelevant. I just want it cleared once and for all that autoexcluding gamespot is not according to rules, and any such response is as well. I've read all of gamespot.com articles on Thompson, and i can find no point at which they deliberately changed or altered what happened (there was a lot of confusion about the penny-arcade incident at one point, and almost everyone got details wrong) and they have been more fact checking then any other reporting party i've seen in some cases. I'm really loathing the "it's gamespot, so it can never be part of the article" pavlovian reaction. SanderJK 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tonight, something added was again deleted on the sole reason that "gamespot is not a source." It wasn't about wether it was important enough to add, just that. I believe this to be false, but we are butting heads here spinning the same arguments over and over, so i am severely debating getting a Request for Comments on this article specific policy issue. If anyone other then michael snow or maxamegalon2000 want to comment why this shouldn't happen, or wether i'm wrong, i might debate otherwise, but i'm tired of arguing on a square inch without moving, and with being given a clear reason. SanderJK 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with an RfC, but I have a feeling that (1) Michael Snow can override anything decided there and (2) most people there will probably defer to his opinion anyway. I don't want to give you the impression that I totally agree with the Gamespot decision; if it were up to me we would use Gamespot, but it isn't up to me, and I'm currently not properly equipped to debate Michael Snow on the issue. --Maxamegalon2000 15:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to be part of an RfC if it would help. My personal opinion is that, just because Gamespot doesn't like Jack Thompson, alone, does not make Gamespot unworthy as a source on him. Some other reason must be found if Michael wants to assert that they are unreliable. For pete's sake, Michelle Malkin is quoted as a source in the article on Al Franken. I really don't think Gamespot can match that for one extreme reporting on the other. For instance, Gamespot hasn't once insinuated that lawyers are part of a conspiracy to destroy America - that I know of, at least. So I would definitely say that Michael hasn't yet made his case for Gamespot's unreliability, or that there is such a consensus here. Kasreyn 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The notice above that I originally posted was intended to establish that when coming in with a source like this, the burden is on its proponents to establish why it's needed. Nobody's really tried to make that case. As I alluded to earlier, and you seem to agree, there's too much detail here now on this point anyway, it should really be condensed and direct people to A Modest Video Game Proposal for the rest. --Michael Snow 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The point i'm trying to make is not that i feel strongly about including anything at all, but that it is contrary to my perception of the rules to autodisqualify gamespot.com as a source. And for the past 2 months or so, gamespot.com has been autodisqualified for anything relating to the Jack Thompson. And i strongly disagree with the reasoning behind it. I have tried to argue why i think this is false, and have challenged those enforcing the ban on any link from gamespot why exactly it is an unverifiable source. This feeling was aggrevated when someone suggested blanking the AfD'd subarticles because they were all 100% unverifiable sources, naming gamespot. And still, i strongly disagree with the reasoning you use on why gamespot apperently can never be used in this article. Because never is the current rule. When i suggested adding 2 lines in the talk page about 2 weeks back, the only comments i got was "that's from gamespot, and can never be used." I argued why gamespot was a verifiable source by any reasonable explanation (Unless you want to compare gamespot to say Stormfront), i got silence. SanderJK 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the only response was to rule your suggestion out because it came from GameSpot. The comments included, "Sure, it's a nice bit of trivia...but is it necessary?" and "I really don't think Penny Arcade needs to be a seperate [sic] section". In other words, and this is the point I'm at as well, in an already overlong article, this is more detail than necessary and belongs in the separate article where it's already covered.
Also, talking about whether something is a "verifiable source" is a confused notion. An assertion is verifiable if you can find reliable and reputable sources to support it. And for reasons alluded to above, GameSpot is pretty clearly less reputable and reliable regarding Jack Thompson than the sources currently being used in the article. That's why the default is to use other sources instead. If there's a specific circumstance that you think justifies making an exception, rather than just debating this in the abstract, please make your case for it. --Michael Snow 21:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
On the specific case, I did not argue the seperate tab, and in fact against it, all i wanted to add is that he contact Seattle Police seeking criminal investigations, and they waved it away. That's not a significant increase in the size of the article, and (i still believe) rates higher then many media only exposure he has gotten. I got 2 responses, one about it "not being on par in notability with the affair with Reno" and the other about gamespot not being a reputable source. I agree that gamespot.com should not be used as a source for everything relating to him, anything controversial from a site with an opposite stance shouldn't be there. But in this case, it was a very plain fact that it had happened. The fax can be seen, scanned, on penny-arcade.com. The rules state that if you have incredible or dubious claims, you need to have incredibly accurate and supremely reliable sources to back it up. You'd think that in the reverse, when something has happened with 99.9% certainty, all you would need is a conforming source that is adequate, and reliable and verifiable enough. Instead, in the original gamespot as a source discussion in march, a fullout stop on using gamespot as a source was called, by you. Almost everyone else in the discussion was at least considering it to be a source. And still, from your earlier response, it seems that using gamespot.com as a source for anything relating to Jack Thompson is by your standards nearly impossible. And yes, i know that the Modest Proposal article is not all it could be. That is besides the point, unless you would want to make clear of how you'd think of using gamespot as a source there. Because a policy of "you can't use it the main article, but you can in the subarticle" has a certain schrizophrenic quality. And yes, there is some residual anger here from the discussion in march. SanderJK 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SanderJK. I haven't seen anything that appears to be a consensus that Gamespot is not reliable. I also agree with SanderJK that the image of the fax is notable and sufficiently trustworthy to use. (Claiming that GS and/or PA are biased enough to put spin on words is one thing; claiming they would actually photoshop the fax image is on an entirely different level.)
The other issue is notability. One of the principle reasons Thompson is notable is his notorious litigiousness. Therefore, the issue of how successful his legal threats are is definitely noteworthy within this article. Therefore it follows that a source showing a case in which law enforcement simply ignored Jack Thompson would be notable for addressing the issue of how successful his threat against PA was. It's not like this inserts a slant to the article; there are far more examples, I am sure, of legal threats Thompson has made which have resulted in action. However, the Seattle PD appears to have roundly ignored him, which I think is notable. A rebuff can be silent and still speak loud and clear. Kasreyn 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you no longer interested in debate, Michael? I don't mean to seem pushy, but my default reaction to silence is not to assume that the person with whom I am disagreeing has beaten me and is resting on their laurels, but to assume that by their silence they no longer have any arguments to put forward with which to rebut mine. What are your views on the notability of Thompson's occasional failures to manipulate law enforcement officers who have real criminals to catch? Kasreyn 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it debate you're here for? This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article, not a debate forum to prove some particular point about Thompson, and the efforts of some (not all) of the gamers to use the article for that purpose are the primary problem it suffers from. And if you're interested in the success of Thompson's efforts, or lack thereof, I would think the results of his actual lawsuits are far more important than some petty complaint like this. In the context of a bloated article that already spends a disproportionate amount of time on video games, that particular section actually needs to be condensed more, especially considering that it has its own separate article where the story is covered in about as much detail as you could wish for. --Michael Snow 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm here for the same reason one is supposed to be on a talk page: debate over improving the article. You seem to be forgetting that it was you who chose to declare Gamespot an unworthy source; the burden of proof is on you to support it. I have so far found one other editor on this talk page, Maximegalon, who seems to simply be going along with you out of awe or a desire not to make waves. Therefore I see no existing consensus on not using Gamespot. My recent post asking you to "debate" was not asking you to debate your opinions of Thompson. I was asking you to defend your rejection of Gamespot's reliability.
As for "results of actual lawsuits" versus a "petty complaint", I don't understand why you don't realize the notability of including the failure of the Seattle PD to act. You admit yourself that Thompson's claim against Penny Arcade was a "petty complaint". Well, that's in accord with what I, and a great many others, think. From what I hear about the guy, pettiness is a defining feature of a great many of his actions. Including the fact of the failure of his complaint is notable because it speaks to the subject's respectability (which apparently in the Seattle PD is not very high) and to the apparent innocence of Penny Arcade (or at least, the fact that the Seattle PD apparently disagrees that Thompson has a case against them). Thompson's claim against PA is a slander. I'm not saying we should not report on it here; it is notable. However, it is not appropriate for us to deliberately fail to follow up on the outcome of his charge. Otherwise, the reader may be left with a false impression that Thompson's charge against Penny Arcade has been taken seriously by law enforcement, which I think it clearly hasn't.
As for including it in the other article, I'm not going to waste my time getting reverted by you, since you still haven't discussed your reasons for considering Gamespot an unreliable source. You're right that this article is bloated, though, and a good deal of the material could be offloaded to the other one. But what concerns me is your insistence that gaming news sites are somehow untrustworthy when it comes to their very field of expertise. That's like saying the New York Times cannot be allowed to report on New York City. Familiarity is not the same thing as bias. Gaming news sources are often the only sites that report on gaming news, largely because mainstream papers consider it "disreputable" or "beneath" them to write news for what they mistakenly assume is a teenage-only audience. So the real question is not whether gaming news sources are acceptable, in my opinion, but whether an issue reported on only by gaming news is even noteworthy enough to include here. But Thompson's shenanigans clearly are, as they have been reported on by many mainstream papers. Kasreyn 08:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it awe, I'd call it respecting his judgement and position, which is something different. I don't want to imply that you're not doing the same, Kasreyn, but I do think that you're wrong on at one point: it is on you to justify the inclusion of GameSpot as a source, and I think that's been made pretty clear. My interpretation of what Michael Snow is trying to say, if I may, is that events that are covered by only gaming news sources are by that very fact less notable than those that are covered by "mainstream" newspapers and such. Video games are the thing Jack's really into now; in a few years he may move on to, I don't know, ping pong. Whereas an article on a video game or even a video game designer would be expected to utilize mainly gaming news sources, Jack Thompson is an attorney and an activist, and the standard for notable exploits in those fields is different, though not necessarily higher or lower, than the fields that would readily accept GameSpot. This isn't very incident-specific, but it's a philosophy that I'm trying to edit this article with. (Personally, I'm not sure how one could verify a lack of police activity regarding a certain claim.) Of course, at the separate article that Michael Snow mentioned and I am not currently aware of, I would think that all bets are off. --Maxamegalon2000 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The separate article I'm alluding to is A Modest Video Game Proposal, where GameSpot and even GamePolitics are currently used as sources (fortunately, not the more unverifiable aspects of GamePolitics). While the total reliance on gaming sources is poor practice when there are several non-gaming sources that should also be used, that's an issue to take up over there. Kasreyn isn't going to waste his time getting reverted by me on that article; apparently he isn't even going to waste his time informing himself as to what sources are already there.
Kasreyn has spent a good deal of energy trying mostly to debate issues about Thompson and GameSpot, it seems, rather than the article. Arguing that "pettiness is a defining feature", or that law enforcement doesn't consider him respectable or take him seriously, is typical of the point-proving agenda some people seem bent on pursuing, for which biased sources would obviously be so much more convenient. I'm not sure what unsupported allegations about the policies or assumptions of mainstream sources have to do with GameSpot, or why "Familiarity is not the same thing as bias" makes a relevant argument. It isn't whether GameSpot is familiar enough with Jack Thompson that's the issue, it's that GameSpot is biased about Jack Thompson. When there are plenty of sources without an obvious bias, we don't need GameSpot for this article, and until somebody demonstrates why we need it, it shouldn't go in.
To focus on the article itself, concern that the reader might get the wrong impression from the content is a legitimate concern Kasreyn raised. That was easily dealt with by condensing the account and restoring this sentence: Meanwhile, Thompson tried to get Seattle police and the FBI to investigate Holkins and Krahulik for orchestrating "criminal harassment" of him through articles on their site. I wrote it that way originally, and it seems to have been lost about a month ago after another attempt to pack in excessive detail. A clear example of actual deterioration caused by some of the gamers in their poorly-thought-out edits. Anyway, saying that he "tried" does not create any false impressions; if anything, that nothing further is said makes a reader likely to conclude Thompson was unsuccessful. --Michael Snow 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your rewrite; thank you. I have to point out that you've misunderstood at least one of my arguments. When I said "familiarity does not equal bias", I was not referring to Gamespot's familiarity with the Thompson case, but its familiarity with the video gaming industry. This was in reply to your apparent opinion that Gamespot is somehow biased in favor of the games industry, or against those who oppose it, because it was founded to report on gaming.
As to what I've spent a good deal of energy on, my sole focus here, as I've asserted before, is to dispute your claim that Gamespot is not a reliable source. It simply happens to be this page that I've done it on. It would have been some other page, had it been that other page where I first read your statement that Gamespot is unreliable.
You also assume too much. Yes, I have read the article on A Modest Video Game Proposal. What I notice about it is that it cites Gamespot as a source, but you have raised no complaints there. This makes me confused as to whether your point is about notability or reliability. If you truly removed the Seattle PD source from Gamespot because it was not reliable to report on anything involving Thompson, why have you left Gamespot sourcing in the Modest Proposal article?
As for Gamespot's bias against Thompson, what evidence do you have? I must have missed it. Maxamegalon makes a good point about burdens of proof in debate, but it's well known that a negative proposition cannot positively be proven. Specifically, I can never "prove" any particular source is unbiased; no amount of evidence could suffice. Therefore, in disputes over bias, the burden of proof does fall on the one raising the claim of bias in the source. Honestly, I am very interested in learning. I'd like to know if I should stop trusting what Gamespot has to say.
Michael, I'm not your enemy. I'm sorry you think I'm here to push a POV on the article, but it's not true. Do I have a personal opinion? Yes, I won't hide that. I think Thompson is a gigantic asshole who's willing to smear and attack anyone if it gets him the attention on which his career is based. But I have no desire to make an article say that; his own words and actions say it for me. I felt the article was misrepresenting the successfulness of Thompson's claim against PA. Your recent edit has now corrected that, and I only wish I'd thought of it myself without so much fuss. I disagree with you over the reliability of a single source (and possible over the concept of reliability itself, though I don't know for sure), but in every other regard I've always respected your contributions to Wikipedia. I've had my share of tangles with POV-pushing single-issue newbies, so I can certainly understand your reaction to me if that's what you decided I was. If I were you I'd probably have reacted the same. At this point, I no longer take issue with the article. All I want to know is what Gamespot's bias is. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There's already been enough pointed out about GameSpot to shift the burden of persuasion to anyone claiming it's unbiased about Jack Thompson. It's dedicated to the gaming industry. It basically relies entirely on that industry for advertising, and fundamentally for content as well. It's heavily focused on product reviews and forums, rather than news. Thompson is a vocal critic of the industry GameSpot promotes and depends on. Under those circumstances, are you saying we should dismiss the idea that GameSpot might be biased? None of these points apply to any secondary source currently in the article, making GameSpot clearly inferior to them, so why use an inferior source?
GameSpot is not forbidden as a source on all of Wikipedia. There's a presumption against using it for this article. I'm not currently concerned about fixing whatever may be wrong with the Modest Video Game Proposal article, though it certainly could stand improvement. There might be reasons to treat it differently anyway. Here the focus is on this article, and people are welcome to try and show why some particular source is needed for this article. If you don't have issues with the article, then things stay as they are. --Michael Snow 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

One of the many valid criticisms of the old article was that for a while it didn't even get his birthdate right, thanks to some vandalism that had gone undetected. Now you guys have managed to change it to an incorrect date again. How embarrassing. --Michael Snow 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While a valid complaint, it is minor. At least it was corrected this time after there were two different dates of birth shown (most likely caused by converting to the numerical date format.) --Sigma 7 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hearing in Louisiana

Not sure if this article grade stuff, but apparently Thompson testified yesterday in front of a committee of the Lousiana House about House Bill 421 (A ban certain games to minors bill). Only link i have is http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060510/NEWS01/605100324/1002/NEWS which is pre-hearing. SanderJK 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's article material because the bill passed committee and Jack mainly used scare tactics and hlaf-truths.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Father Time89 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 May 2006.

Immediately following this, he was interviewed by 9 News, and stated that his goal was "he hopes retailers do end up in court so often, they will choose to stop selling violent games altogether" http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4888522 Jabrwock 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/2782806.html --Viridis 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there's enough local media coverage of the bill and his direct involvement to add a paragraph to the article. If no one else does it by the end of the day, I'll try and give it a shot tonight. --Maxamegalon2000 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget his quote from above. If you think it's usable. I think it's notable because it reveals his true intentions. That he really doesn't care about just preventing these games from being played by kids, he wants them off the market altogether... Jabrwock 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should put that towards the beginning of the article because it is important information (what someone does is just as important as why he does it if you ask me).Father Time89
I've given it a try. I'm worried its inclusion comes off as an excuse to criticize him. --Maxamegalon2000 01:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the only other reason he has given us for his crusade (other then the usual "I'm in it for the childern" BS) is for his his sister Pam. Unfortunately he said it on gamepolitics which is no longer a valid source. Oh and I don't think anyone would argue that a Lousiana news station would be an invalid source so I guess that means we nailed Thompson.Father Time89

Vexation litigation

"Thompson tells 9 News he hopes retailers do end up in court so often, they will choose to stop selling violent games altogether."

That was already added to the article last night (well except it doesn't mention vexation litigation). It's at the start of the articleFather Time89

Some one might want to include this

I think that some one should include what gamers think of Mr. Thompson Xykon 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Impossible. Many gamers have different attitudes towards him; you get the mums who occasionally plays tetris that agree with him </stereotype>, gamers who really couldn't care less about what he say's, gamers who haven't even heard of him, gamers who hate him, and even those who believe that he shall endure a thousand terrifying deaths in the melancholic post-death domain of surreal inferno, while faceless horrors laugh at his dying soul with silent screams of unholy mirth. Twelve-year-olds, in other words. 86.141.179.242 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I, as a gamer, am having to stop myself from adding to this page, because what I would add is definitely not from a NPOV. I personally want to add a death date to the article. "Died: Hopefully very soon, for the sake of humanity". But still, I think that there needs to be counterpoints to his statements reflecting the portion of gamers who know about him and the issues at hand added. I'm just not the one to do it. R.H._Jesus_Freak40 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Didn't Jack Thompson look at the Wikipedia article and he demanded that he wanted it changed because he claimed some of it was false? Does he agree with the current article or he didn't look at it?

He did have a big problem with the wikipedia article on him and as a result, wikipedia had to lock the article due to his rage and or threats on the article on him, and he also felt that the article on him was false as well. But how he feels with the current article is a mystery, so it's safe to say for now that he hasn't looked at it. 24.188.203.181 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I've never heard of any of this. Do you have a source? Kasreyn 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one, link:http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Censored_articles#Jack_Thompson_.28uncensored.29

A while ago or a few months ago, Jack Thompson believed that wikipedia was making stuff up about him, he then wrote the letter to Wikipedia or the people at wikipedia, that he didn't like what was being written about him, because he felt that it was made up, therefore causing a temporary shutdown on the page about him, meaning a lockdown was quickly ensured after the discovery on wikipedia, due to what he started doing shortly after the big discovery, like when he saw his information on wikipedia, as well as the cases that he did too. 24.188.203.181 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't know, Kasreyn? You should check his user contributions; there's a link to the profile he created at the top of this talk page. Did you think this article was randomly picked to be monitored by WP:OFFICE? --Maxamegalon2000 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeuugh! Quoth the good Mr. Thompson:
I just got an email back from some jackass whose anonymous, cowardly avatar reveals he is an "Atheist Wikipedian." Gee, why am I not surprised?
You goofs let video gamer cretins spew page after page of bile about me, and I try to correct some of it, and you say my responses are not "encyclopedic." I guess I'll just sue you, then. Thanks for the heads-up.[3]
Wow. I think that beats anything I've ever seen any user get banned for, ever. I'm 100% certain that if I ever said anything like that at Wikipedia, I'd be indef. blocked so fast my head would spin. Yet User:Jackthompson doesn't seem to have been.
For that matter, what's this WP:OFFICE thing I keep hearing about? I've only been editing heavily for less than a year now, so there's still a lot I don't know. Kasreyn 04:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think User:Jackthompson was banned for either legal threats or, ironically, creating a user name and making contributions to defame the celebrity whose name was chosen. If it was the second, I imagine he would have been unblocked if it was determined that it really was him.
WP:OFFICE is less than a year old. Basically, when someone contacts WikiMedia Foundation with a complaint about an article, usually about himself, and legal threats are involved, the article is temporarily locked down while User:BradPatrick, WikiMedia's lawyer, and User:Michael Snow, a lawyer, look into the problem (either Michael Snow was involved in the investigation or he was assigned to overlook its subsequent revision, I'm not sure). In this case, it was found that the original Wikipedia article on Jack Thompson contained some "actionable" statements, so the article was started from scratch with the rules regarding sources more strictly enforced. I have a feeling there is a better summary of the process somewhere else. I think Michael Snow, who also runs WP:SIGNPOST, did a write-up on the incident, though it doesn't contain much information that those who were around when it happened didn't already know. You may want to check out the article's history and the talk page's history during the month of March. Maybe things here will start making a little more sense. --Maxamegalon2000 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

FreeTalk Radio interview

http://www.freetalklive.com/files/thompson.mp3

Honor of being the first guest to ever hang up on them... They were kind of hammering on him though, but he was equally interrupting them. First tries to equate violent video games with obsenity (so there's just a moral justification to restriction), but then changes tact and tries to equate them with alcohol, stating a health issue. Jabrwock 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Florida Bar lawsuit dropped

You'll need access to WebPACER, but it's case #06-CV-20945, Southern District of Florida (Miami)

Thompson v. Florida Bar - Cause: 18:0241 Conspiracy Against Citizen Rights

  • 4/11/06 1 COMPLAINT filed
  • 4/13/06 2 MOTION by Jack Thompson for mediation
  • 4/25/06 3 MOTION by Florida Bar to dismiss the complaint
  • 4/25/06 4 MOTION by Florida Bar to dismiss the complaint
  • 5/4/06 5 MOTION by Jack Thompson to recuse judge
  • 5/8/06 6 RESPONSE by Jack Thompson in opposition to [5-1] motion to

recuse judge

  • 5/9/06 7 ORDER granting [5-1] motion to recuse judge and refer the

matter to Chief Judge Zloch for any appropriate action he deems necessary; cause is dismissed; all pending motions are denied as moot

  • 5/9/06 -- CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to

Magistrate.

  • 5/10/06 -- Case reopened
  • 5/17/06 8 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Jack Thompson

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabrwock (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 May 2006.

This is a good start, although there seems to be some information missing (e.g. between 5/4/06 and 5/8/06, there's opposition to recuse the judge, but it is not directly referenced in that timeline.). Otherwise, there's no problem. --206.24.48.1 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why it's missing that part. Possibly because only the final outcome (the ORDER) is relevant to the case record, other than JT's RESPONSE... But I'm not familiar with how PACER records things. Jabrwock 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Then are there any sourcing problems with adding this information to the article? I must confess I'm not a legal type so I wouldn't know. Kasreyn 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how we cite legal documents, and I'd be more comfortable if the edits were made by someone who has actually read the documents, rather than the rest of us. Unless the news picks this up, of course. --Maxamegalon2000 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Thompson_%28attorney%29_archive11_5cb0.html"