Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

So WP:OFFICE is the reason this one page is being held to a much higher standard than all the rest of the pages? --Cyde Weys 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's being held to a high standard (one a lot of other pages should aspire to, even if they're not there yet) in order to keep it from degenerating into the dross that prompted the office's intervention. So in a manner of speaking, yes. --Michael Snow 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So high standards lack decent formatting? The info may seem to be reputable and informative on a media basis, but the look of the article is monotone and boring to read and research into. Not all the problem is the formatting, the information itself lacks too, even with the 60 or so sources. All the Wiki Foundation and Jack did was make the article back to stage 1 before it became a horribly biased article, then evolved into a Jack-InfoStation *but still mildly biased* --Thndr 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I object to the exclusion of specialist online sources, but we'll have to see what exactly people want to add to discuss the merits thereof.--Eloquence * 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They're not excluded per se, there are already both specialist (local or industry-specific) and online sources being used. But in case of doubt, the burden is on whoever wants to include something to show that their source is reputable. In addition, it needs to add value to the article, and at this point a lot of the major events are pretty well covered by sticking to more mainstream sources. --Michael Snow 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reaction

I hate it. Only until it gets to "See Also" is his true nature revealed. The external links are almost all pro-Jack. Where is the vocal opposition?? Why aren't gamers, gaming sites and gaming forums, other than Game Politics included? This is truly disgusting. Maluka 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia can't stand up for itself.

What information is missing from the main article that should be added? I think ideally, all the see-alsos should be inline-linked and summarized within the article.--Eloquence * 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Information on Thompson's threats to sue users of Wikipedia certainly deserves inclusion. Game Politics has the entire story and it's a worthy read at that. --AWF

Has the authenticity of the alleged e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation been confirmed? Where does the text originate from?--Eloquence * 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's apparently been confirmed from the standpoint the Wikimedia Foundation, now hasn't it? If I send the WF an email claiming to be Janet Reno and demanding they take down their article, do you think they'll do it just because I say so? Don't be obtuse. Jack Thompson has a major need for attention which goes well within the defined norms (at least here in Ontario) of stalking, and the Wikimedia Foundation is a bunch of spineless slobs; a bunch of self-righteous kids pretending to be important after school trying to leave some pathetic mark on history. Wikipedia's become nothing more than a sad soap box for people's beliefs, if it's anything from somebody's idea that patently untrue statements be included for the sake of some sham "NPOV" balancing act to capitulating to baseless legal threats, it's been done. It's only unfortunate that those people who contributed cold hard cash to Jimbo Wales' personal plea for greener, fatter pockets can't be withdrawn after the fact and given to a cause more morally wholesome, like posting a rapist's bail. Professor Ninja 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop complaining about the Wikimedia Foundation actions and just get on with researching and writing the article up to standards? Yes it's going to be harder to capture his true self in the article but we have to use sources which have done thier homework. A lot of people don't like how this article is being held to a very tight standard, but I think once the article is tweak it will come to be a standard by which other Wikipedia articles will be held up to.--Tollwutig 15:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its the "being held to a very tight standard" that has most people ticked off (myself included), but rather, its the arbitrary sourcing standard that is being applied. I do, however, agree that we should do our best to cite all of the insane acts this man has done in order to make sure that this article truely reflects the man and his self-important, facts-be-damned agenda pushing. Given how often he does this sort of thing, finding sources for it hasn't yet been too difficult, its just whether or not those sources meet the criteria of the Snow-Filter. 216.89.171.253 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a laundry-list of all the dirty things one does. Read about what Wikipedia is not for a better idea of what the goal is, for any given article's direction. --Keyne 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that it be a laundry list of his lunacy, but merely that we properly document a good sampling of the full scope of his lunacy. To do any less would be doing all readers and editors of this article a grave disservice. 216.89.171.253 22:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia shouldn't be so spineless to actually follow through. You guys are completely worthless if you can't even take a threat without falling on your ass and working overtime to fix it so everyone's happy. Don't ever do that again.User: mothman47 13:11, 16-3-06

Have you read the current article? I think it does a much better job of portraying how much of a nut he is (I mean, there's the quote about him being a "kook"), and now it's all backed up with mainstream media sources, so it's MUCH harder for Thompson to claim he has a case against them, unless he wants to sue all the news sources they reference... Jabrwock

Length

The article is getting long enough to start warning about size, so it's necessary to be concise and focus on describing events and actions. Not everything he has ever said belongs in the article. Again, if it's just a quote, it should go to Wikiquote. --Michael Snow 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's common practice to use sub-articles when the main article gets too long, but I agree that extensive quotes should be avoided.--Eloquence * 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Although the atricle is getting long, it is all relevant. A lot of information needs to be put back in, with sources to back it up. But the quotes should be shortened to the point without changing the meaning. I also think the number of links should be put back in as they contained good information. I also think that his threat against Wikipedia need to be documented. Anyone else agree with me here? --Shaoken 09:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I passionately agree that his threat against Wikipedia should be documented in the main article! I would give this priority over documenting more examples of his litigation on music/video games. How do we go about doing that from verifiable sources? Cje 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider it to long, but i would seriously considering breaking it up in more headed paragraphs. SanderJK 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the things i would consider moving, currently what is in the "Other activities tab" makes little sense. The lawsuit is game related legal action, the Florida settlement is probably a directly effect of the Reno/sanity thing, and the Howard Stern thing is activism. I also think Jack Thompson and Rockstar is so much of each of the litigation and activism that it should probably be seperated. His main issue is with them it seems, and the others could be perhaps named "Other litigation/activism"SanderJK 11:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I seriously think we could trim the RAP MUSIC portion. While it did bring Thompson onto the National Scene it didn't bring him into as much prominence as the Howard Stern fight. I also feel the Stern fight should be given its own Heading, with a bit more filling out. I also agree it could use a good bit of breaking up. The article just runs on in the Activism section.--Tollwutig 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No way is Stern more important here than 2 Live Crew, I don't see how it's possible to think that unless you weren't really aware of the rap music controversy when it was at its height. Thompson was arguably the primary instigator there, whereas my sense is with Howard Stern, he's just one among many voices complaining. We could give the Stern fight its own heading if people can offer more sources for the necessary detail, but it's not a pivotal moment in his career the way rap was.

I was around during the whole 2 Live Crew thing, was actually a fan of 2 Live Crew in the late 80's. I never heard of Thompson then. I also remember the Howard Stern campaign, and Thompson's name is notible at the time because of Stern's 'This crazy lawyer in Florida' statment. --Tollwutig 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not whether your memory is good enough to remember him specifically that matters, it's the significance of his role and the relative importance of the events. His notability in the Stern case doesn't hinge on Stern calling him a crazy lawyer. I'd venture that if you had seen message boards or Usenet discussions from back then about rap, his name might have come up as much as it does on Gamepolitics now. Looking at it from a historical perspective, the 2 Live Crew controversy is comparable to the Howard Stern one, and the sources indicate Thompson's role was much more critical in the 2 Live Crew case than that of Stern. --Michael Snow 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Snow I'll respectfully disagree with you here on the Stern incident. After 2 Live Crew Thompson pretty much vanished off the radar except in a few instances during the 1990s, and even his video game campaign didn't get him much publicity until he started in on Howard Stern. Looking through newspaper archives Thompson vanishes except for local Miami stuff during the 90s. I wish I had access to more Miami Newspaper archives to get more sources. --Tollwutig 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're looking at this in different ways. I'm thinking in terms of what will be significant as history, you're focusing on the amount of the publicity he gets. Sure, he may have disappeared from the radar for a while after 2 Live Crew, but I still see him as more critical to that story, even if he gets more publicity on the other because Stern broadcasts it. And aside from that, I have to wonder whether Stern does get him all that much publicity, we have more sources for the 2 Live Crew stuff as it stands now. --Michael Snow 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We are looking at it differently. I am looking at what makes Thompson notable. Crazed non-notable lawyers don't deserve a wiki article. Also how much lack of Stern references are due to research? I'll look into trying to find some but as I have stated previously I can't get full articles of Miami Herald without paying, something which I am unwilling to do to edit a Wiki. I will point out links or article names, but I have to rely on those who have access to University libraries to retrieve the full article.--Tollwutig 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is in danger of being both overlong and unbalanced, and I agree that it runs on in spots, but the rap music section could use more information, not less. The problem, if anything, is the disproportionate weight given to video games due to the material being more recent, available on the web, and the skewed demographics of the people involved here. --Michael Snow 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the Video Gaming portion is a bit over emphasized as well. And I am a regular at gamepolitics.--Tollwutig 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The earliest articles mentioned here about his videogame activism date back to 1999 (I believe), meaning that he's been envolved with it for 6 years at least, and as far as i can tell, the only thing he's been involved with since he started to become known to the gaming community. I agree that it shouldn't get undue weight, but so far this article spawns 18 years of career, and not all of that in the spotlight. Things you do in the spotlight generate more news and more notoriety. Especially because he takes an extremist enough view on gaming to cause other conservative pro family organisations to distance themselves, and is in the gaming media constantly (There has been a forum "signature" that updated since last he made a crazy statement, for months on end it never crossed 2 days) it is not at all unreasonable to request that the article reflects his notoriety and extremism.SanderJK 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Howard Stern stuff, at least what's documented here, is all since that time, so no, his activism isn't exclusively video games even now. --Michael Snow 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing that has been looked over so far in the new article has been the NIMF telling Jacko to stop using their name in association with himself. There's a good Gamespot article on the story here: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135846.html 216.89.171.253 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Read more carefully, the topic's already been covered. --Michael Snow 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so it has. My bad. 216.89.171.253 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Flowers for Jack

I just tried to link Flowers for Jack in the main page, but it did not work, i get redirected to this page again. The link in the "see also" section works fine, i have no idea what is going on. Can anyone fix it? SanderJK 11:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It still exists, but it's being redirected to here, where there is very little if any information on it. Try this: Flowers for Jack --Keyne 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. SanderJK 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Campaign against Janet Reno

This section seems pretty poorly organized. It has very little information on his actual campaign and seems to start off focusing on something somewhat unrelated. If it (the radio station connection) is actually pertinent, can anyone dig up some more information so it doesn't look like it's just thrown in there 'for kicks'? --Keyne 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The radio host, Rogers, is part of the reason he apparently ran against Reno. All of this early stuff does tie together, I believe, including his dealings with the Florida Bar. The lack of information is because that's all we have from the sources so far. The organization would come naturally enough if somebody can do the necessary research to fill it in. --Michael Snow 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we include that his grudge led to him criticizing her in his book, about when Reno interviewed him for a student job in the DA's office? (Reno was assistant at the time) It's detailed in the first chapter (.pdf) of his book.Jabrwock 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we say that he has a grudge? Does he say that a grudge is the reason he tells that story? By the way, it wasn't a student job he interviewed for. --Michael Snow 18:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread it. He said he had done the interview before he finished law school, I missed the bit about setting himself up with a job for after he got his bar license. Anyway, he goes into an awful lot of background detail speculating why Reno "hates" him for someone who doesn't have a grudge. I suppose that's original research to assume that, but I think we could at least mention that his first encounter with Reno was when she interviewed him for the prosecutors' job. He does mention in the book that he should have known better that it wouldn't be the last time he would have to spar with her. Jabrwock 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My inclination is not to, simply because a colorful story told by a highly interested party (as opposed to an independent observer), about a person that party appears to have a grudge against, nearly 30 years after the fact, in the self-serving venue of an autobiography, should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The potential for embellishment, as to virtually every point of fact, is just too great. --Michael Snow 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Suppose we were to simply include, "According to the first chapter in his autobiography, Thompson's first encounter with Janet Reno was..." or some similar 1-2 sentance phrasing that fits in well. 216.89.171.253 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly then, we need to make that much more clear. As it stands, it isn't obvious why we segue from one portion of that section to another other than a (very) short blurb about Reno dismissing possible litigation, then it goes into some pretty impressive detail on Thompson's 'grudge' against the Radio Station (rather than his grudge vs. Reno, which the section implies). It's very disjoint. --Keyne 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree I posted a link which should be in Archives 8, which was a good Newspaper Archive although you can't get full articles without paying you can get the Paper, Page Number , and Date from it which should make searching finding the full articles where they are available for free.--Tollwutig 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should say he has a grudge. Perhaps it should simply state that "Thompson first met Reno in November 1975 when he applied for a job as a prosecutor in Dade County. He was not hired.^[1]" Something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberSkull (talk • contribs) 14:46, April 5, 2006.

Rap Music

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".[1]

Do we really need this? Just seems extraneous to me. I know it shows how kooky Thompson can be, but still seems un-needed wordage.--Tollwutig 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Batman article by Chuck Philips is, in my judgment, far and away the most thorough profile anyone has found of Thompson as a person, as opposed to stories that simply report what he said or did. And the Batman theme is a key element of how Philips describes him, so yes, I think it's needed. It's a bit colorful, but it's not us creating the color, and it's way better than trying to pack in every remotely-kooky thing he may have said, an approach that would effectively mean the article is inappropriately seeking to prove a point (and also turns it into a bloated, unreadable mess). --Michael Snow 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For the first time, I agree with Michael. It's a strange little section of this article but it's completely appropriate. Thompson is, to put it kindly, a very colorful person. An article describing him naturally reflects that. --ElKevbo 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but the wordking just doesn't seem to fit into the paragraph it's in. When looking at the paragraph as a whole it just seems thrown in, as a side thought, and it breaks up the reading of the Rap Music segment. It's like you're going through a series of events and then there's the batman thing thrown in the middle.--Tollwutig 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bully school board resolution

An update to his efforts to get school boards involved with a Bully boycott. I guess the Miami school board didn't quite agree with him afterall.

Secretive new video game might inspire school bullies - Miami Herald

Thompson asks school board to adopt a resolution urging Rockstar not to release Bully, asking local merchants not to sell it and asking parents not to buy it.

Video game targeted by Miami-Dade School Board - Miami Herald

School board waters down the resolution before adopting it, which now urged retailers not to sell Bully to minors and directed the district to inform parents "on the potential harmful effects to children of playing interactive video games containing violence."Jabrwock 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference, he started campaigning against Bully in august 2005 (http://xbox.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=5399), earlier then the Institute thing (14/10) (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12259) are we trying to maintain chronology in the activism section? SanderJK 20:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SanderJK you'll have to make a strong case for using Gamesites. As Snow has mentioned they usually have a Bias against Thompson. Not saying your sources aren't good but they have to be bullet proof. It would help if you can find other sources on his Bully boycott. I know Miami Herald sorta covered it, but I also know last year Thompson organized a protest against it. Try to research that sort of stuff more in mainstream media. Pretty sure the protest involving school kids hit mainstream media somewhere.-Tollwutig 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a source right now, but it was Peaceaholics Thompson protested with, and it WAS covered by mainstream media. Don't know if his specific involvement was though. But in the Chatterbox interview he does detail the protest about a week or so before it happened, since he was a planner. Jabrwock 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get us to introduce these sites, i've heard of neither before today, they were just the top google links when i searched for the events+dates. I was just wondering since the general layout of the article seems to be chronological, both with sections and within sections, wether or not bully needs to move. Flowers for Jack might be in the wrong spot too. SanderJK 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Fox News report on that Peaceaholics protest about Bully, and it mentions that Thompson was there, and quotes him: "Columbine changed the face of America but you [Rockstar] are about to come out with a game that celebrates, glamorizes and trains kids to do what [Columbine killers] Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did... Bullying is not a subject for a video game. We are not asking Rockstar to stop making this game, we are demanding they stop." Jabrwock 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As an addition to this, is there some way to include the vocal interview given at http://www.wccoradio.com/pages/3648.php ? I find this interesting since, he claims the school boards ruling to be something completely different to the outcome of the actual meeting as listed in the Miami Herald here... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14105904.htm.

Mr Thompson claims that the board requested that retailers not stock the game at all, whereas the Miami Herald claims that the board only requested the game not be sold to minors and that parents be educated as to the meaning of the ratings? I'm not sure how to do this without it sounding biased Flipside72 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleware HB 360 testimonial

Can anyone find transcripts of his testimony before the Delaware Judicial Committee yesterday (wed, march 15)? He held up a video game and said This is not speech... WHYY (a Philadelphia NPR affiliate) was there with a camera, they might have gotten it. It would be handy, because I think he did a podcast interview on GamePolitics where he stated that games ARE speech... (trying to track that one down too) Jabrwock 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The podcast was from Chatterbox (.mp3) 16 minutes in, says he wants to restrict games in 1st amendment compatible means, implying that he consideres games as possibly protected speech, and so he needs to get around it. Jabrwock 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check NPR tomorrow, see if they cover it nationally. Which since Philly is a major contributor they may, but depends on if any major news stories break. I wouldn't put it past for All Things Considered to cover it. They sometimes cover video game stuff.--Tollwutig 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Litigation

Does anyone have any info on that $246 million lawsuit in Tenessee? According to the GTAIII wiki, it's been "pending" as of 2004. It's been two years, what was the name of the suit, and has it moved, defeated or been dropped?

Also, is it important to state how the cases turned out? Dustin Lynch pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. Medina Gazette (it's a google archive, there's problems with the medina-gazette page right now) Jabrwock 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think outcomes only warrant mentioning insofar as they involve Thompson. If Thompson filed the suit, then yes we want to know what happened in the end, and the Tennessee lawsuit is a gap in the coverage right now. But Devin Moore's conviction, for example, only gets mentioned because Thompson made an issue of it. Michael Carneal's guilty plea ends up on the cutting room floor. Those details belong in articles about that person, or about the incident generally. --Michael Snow 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It's odd that I can't find ANYTHING about the Tennessee lawsuit other than the reported parts. Not it's official name, not where it was filed... Makes it much harder to track down. Jabrwock 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cocke County Circuit Court. The name of the case I don't know, but the victim's names were Bede and Hamel, which may help. --Michael Snow 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bully ban lawsuit

August 2005 filed Thompson v. Best Buy - a Complaint for Injunctive Relief in Miami-Dade county court for the 11th circuit.

Anyone know what happened to this? It was a petition to have Bully declared a "public nuisance" so it couldn't be sold in the state. Jabrwock 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradicts his statement in Chatterbox interview (15 min) where he says that adults should be free to buy whatever games they want. Jabrwock

I did some footwork here and found that the complaint was dismissed with a VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL. I would recommend someone more versed in the ways of Wikipedia review the documents I found and act appropriately so as the information is posted within the scope of the scrutiny of this article.

The case filed 8/17/05 Thompson V. BEST BUY CO OF MINNESOTA INC. (et al). is (local) case number 2005-16769-CA-01 and (state) case number 13-2005-CA-016769-0000-01. The document that dropped the case was a VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE recorded in official records book 23897 page 2807 and can be read by searching public records of Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts database (http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/public-records/image.asp?page=1&cfn_master_id=18181341#image -should be a direct link).

I hope this helps the cause of bettering this article and Wikipedia as a whole. DaveReaves 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm curious if the powers that be that now preside over this article would consider simple correction to be "original research". For example, suppose I can find a "reputable" source for Jack Thompson saying that EA should lose their right to defend their copyright on The Sims 2 because they allow users to mod the game. Would it then be "original research" to point out that the doctrine that intellectual property rights must be defended in order not to be lost only applies to trademarks and not copyrights? The only part of No Original Research that I can find that this even touches near is the following:

...it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

I'm not convinced that simply pointing out a legal error made by Thompson (significant because he's a lawyer) fits under that heading. 216.89.171.253 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of times they have been made. Maybe Thompson needs a legal errors section. Although we'd have to have an actual Lawyer weigh in on them in the talk pages before I'd feel safe publishing them, but I know one who probably won't mind contributing, once he gets back from vacation... Jabrwock or INAC either of you seen the_attorney on GP lately?--Tollwutig 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen him commenting on GamePolitics lately, but I know he's around. Dennis made him a correspondant reporting on legal matters. Jabrwock 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dennis removed the ability to create annonimous posts after Thompson made some very harsh comments about the MGS gamer that comitted suicide. Afterwards Jack created a livejournal account and harassed individuals on the Gamepolitics livejournal. Every time he would "go to far" Dennis would ban the account, and Jack would create a new one. After Jack posted Dennis' private home phone number (Which Jack claimed to have been an "office" number and therefore perfectly legal to do so even though it is an unlisted telephone number) Dennis reported Jack to the Livejournal Abuse Team for Terms of Service violations, was issued a warning about his actions, then IP banned from Livejournal after ignoring the warning. Namrepus221 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time trying to show legal errors, especially if you're not a lawyer. Not only is it likely to be original research and analysis, if you haven't got the skill or training to parse things very carefully, what you have may not actually indicate an error. To use your example, if Thompson said EA should lose copyright protection because they allow modding, that can be taken as a statement about what the law ought to be, not what it is. Even if the actual state of the law is different, he hasn't necessarily made an error. He's an activist pushing for changes in the law, after all.

Also, just because you've heard of the doctrine being in a different field doesn't mean there couldn't be ways to accomplish something similar for a copyright. If a reputable source points something out, that's worth considering, but this article is not the place for amateur legal analysis. --Michael Snow 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said unless I heard either a judge or attorney with proper legal references state it in the talk pages I would not state Thompson makes legal errors. Why I also said it would need professional oversight. I am not an attorney nor do I think I am qualified to distinguish intricacies in the law. --Tollwutig 15:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he also accuse Wil Wright and EA in being in collaboration with the porn industry to create content for The Sims 2 in that same interview? Also the hosts of the Chatterbox show had a follow up on the "Loss of Copyright" thing the week after the interview, that Thompson was indeed incorrect in using the word "copyright". "Loss of trademark" would've been more correct, but still incorrect as the mods to the game do not in themselves create a deviant work and are simply additions to the game.Namrepus221 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If the mods are being distributed labeled with the trademarked name of the game, then they could indeed endanger the trademark if not objected to, depending on the context in which the name is used. Probably, if the sites distributing the mods just say "Mods to be used with [Game Name]" and have a clear disclaimer that they're not produced or endorsed by the game-maker, then they won't pose a trademark risk, but if they simply say "[Game Name] mods" in a way that makes it unclear whether they're official products of the game-maker or not, then they might ultimately lose their trademark if it's not fought. *Dan T.* 00:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I don't think we should provide a link to Thompson's Wikiquote until that section is cleaned up considerably. While it retains some very juicy quotes, they are either not sourced anymore (Livejournal blocking Thompson's accounts) or generally very poorly sourced to begin with. If someone wants to help, we could begin re-sourcing that so it can be included in the bio wiki here. --Keyne 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jabrwock 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Law.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364082606 Legal News website, has an article on Video Games and Jack Thompson, tying him to Illinois an Michigan gaming bills, and the Best Buy lawsuit. --Tollwutig 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Good find, I was looking for more info about that Nuisance lawsuit. Apparently the suit was dropped (it doesn't specify it though, but it was never settled so I assume) when Best Buy agreed to enforce their ID policy. This explains why Thompson announced he was suing them for violating that agreement after his son bought a copy of the Warriors at Best Buy in a "sting"... Jabrwock 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.law.com/jsp/newswire_article.jsp?id=1015973956860

I am thinking this is a reputable site.--Tollwutig 16:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

I think we should add some of the links to his interviews down the bottom. The links to parodys and such can be left out though. --Shaoken 00:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think they should go into Wikiquote as it's cleaned up. The Wikiquote needs a lot of clean up due to loss of links on Gamepolitics, after his perma ban. --Tollwutig 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IGN

Can IGN be used as a source? They are considered quite reputable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of how well the article they write is researched. If they are relying on Gamepolitics.com, etc for sources it'll be a hard sell. If you can point to an IGN interview with Thompson, you'd have an easier sell. The assumption here is gaming sites are inherently biased againse Thompson and thus the sources are not NPOV. --Tollwutig 22:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when did sources have to be NPOV? Since when is this even an issue? We can only cite sources which have zero bias? Well thank the lucky stars, it's time to shut down wikipedia because you're not going to find one source in the entire world that won't, under the right silver-tongued devil with a persecution complex, demonstrate any bias whatsoever. Hey, maybe we should just stop sourcing Jack himself since the assumption is he's inherently biased against gaming and gaming sites, and THUS CANNOT BE NPOV. Professor Ninja 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't assuming bias a bias in itself? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not whether it's NPOV, it's about verifiability. If IGN is quoting GamePolitics, then it's GP doing the original research, so it's GP's verifiability you need to argue, not IGN's. Jabrwock 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about IGN, not GP. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if it's IGN sourcing GP it might as well be GP. Why don't you just list the article here and we can all evaluate it. -Quasipalm 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So, in your mind, any article that makes reference to anything anybody ever said has to have the verifiability of the original source tracked down. God, I hope no articles on WWII cite a newspaper from the 40s with a quote from Eisenhower or Truman, because tracking down the microfiches and resurrected the dead in a blasphemous voodoo ceremony to get them to verify their quotes is going to be a real bitch. Professor Ninja 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but any article that is just a rehash of another article, we should use the original article, because the original writer was the one who did all the research. The articles below are good examples of articles we can attribute to IGN, because they were the one's investigating the story... Jabrwock 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here would be the first one: An Open Letter from Jack Thompson. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ESRB Adversary and Lawyer Targets Killer 7 Thompson did quote the game review from IGN in his statement regarding the game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What I was saying about Bias came directly from Michael Snow in: "The current article is well-supplied with high-quality sources and should only accept more of the same. We don't need niche media with an obvious bias in the matter just because that's all some people know how to find. The sheer laziness of that approach is what made the old article such a hash to begin with, and we're not going down that road again. --Michael Snow 21:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)" That comes out of the Archive 8 Speakin of Sources Heading--Tollwutig 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the article reference contrary evidence to Jack's position?

For example, this USATODAY article which shows inmates being given videogame consoles for good behaviour and subsequently remaining trouble-free?

Or is that actionable libel too? Professor Ninja 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well this article is about adults and Thomson has said nothing about it nor has anyone else said anything about it regards to Mr. Thompson as far as I know. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's contrary evidence which has likewise been presented in every opinionated biographical article from Terri Schiavo to David Duke; that it's indirectly related to the person in question has never stopped it before, but then again, earlier one might have been under the impression that The Office was old enough to start shaving, so you can't be too careful these days. Professor Ninja 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what CyberSkull was saying: Thompson's beef has always been about the affects of video games on children, not adults; even if he did talk about adults, I'm not sure that an article about giving inmates a $35 handheld would really be all that applicable. That being said, I do support an "industry response" section; I'm sure there's some good, verifiable quotes from ESRB officials, and Electronic Gaming Monthly did give Jack Thompson their "Jack Thompson is a Dumbass" award this year (I found it in LexisNexis!) And if we're interested, I could re-read Everything Bad Is Good For You and find some good parts. --Maxamegalon2000 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with an industry response section. But maybe we should limit it to official "response to JT" press releases like the ESRB, ESA, VDSA, etc. Of course EGM is going to give him the "Dumbass" award. The ACLU "Top 10 Censor of the Year" was much more significant. Jabrwock 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It should also be Responses to Thompson. Not a specific industry. Official repsonses like Stern's lunatic lawyer, NIMF's David Walsh please don't use my name, Reno's "I like big men, so no need to worry Jack" I will look on the NIMF's website, I think they posted Walsh's letter.--Tollwutig 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We should find a source for Thompson's response, where he accuses Walsh of conflict of interest. Jabrwock 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like nothing more than to see a point-by-point rebuttal of all of JBT's claims with good scientific sources, but, and it pains me to say it, that might be considered Original Research. I'm not an experienced wiki person, so don't take my statements as law here, but, given the *ahem* stringent standards this new article is being held to, it might be difficult to make a case for such an inclusion. 216.89.171.253 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thompson's claim of satire/modest game proposal

I see nothing in the section on a modest video game proposal wherein Thompson contradicted his assertion that the proposal itself was only satire some time before he made the satire claim. This actually occured and is a verifiable event. I would assume that this documented email occurence that made it on to several sites would pass whatever magic verifiability test we're now under, so I was hoping if anybody could remember where it was that he blatantly lied either about one thing or the other. Professor Ninja 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

He went on-air to clarify that the proposal itself was satire, but that the offer of $10,000 was "real". And to be fair to the man, no-one has actually fulfilled his original claim. Yeah it's over something as stupid as Paul Eibeler not picking a charity, but it *is* a criteria that he listed... Jabrwock 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Activism and Lobbying

I have a question should the statment about him predicting the beltway sniper would be a gamer be reworded. I only ask becasue to me that statment makes him seem like that his prediction was correct and there is no evidence to prove that. --SleepyDan 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

True, especially since it turned out not to be a teenage boy, but a teenager and an ex-army "expert"-marksman, using a modified car, not a teenager using a bicycle and a collapsable rifle... Thompson's prediction turned out to be way off, and the police predictions (that he was likely ex-military) turned out to be true.

Pair Seized in Sniper Attacks; Gun in Car Tied to 11 Shootings, Washington Post, October 24, 2002

Maybe word it to say he "speculated" instead of predicted? Jabrwock 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that Jack did claim to be correct. Maybe later I'll find it somewhere. --Maxamegalon2000 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he CLAIMED to be correct, he wasn't, so I agree that the wording should be changed.24.176.26.37 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also he still claims they trained on Halo. Although we'd need a non game politics quote or article of him stating this. With proper references I would rewrite the sentence to:

Thompson speculate that the perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks would be "a teenaged boy, who plays video games" and "may indeed ride a bicycle to and from his shooting locations, his gun broken down and placed in a backpack while he pedals." The official investigation showed one of the attackers had extensive military training, and no evidence of any video game links were found. Despite this Thompson still claims the attackers trained on the popular game HALO[42]

I'll look for articles relating. Pretty sure we can find something show they didn't train on Halo. Can anyone verify that after the fact Thompson has claimed to a verifiable news source that they trained on Halo. Think he may have said something in the Alabama case on it.--Tollwutig 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sniper/timeline_investigation.html Long article on the whole Beltway Sniper. Doesn't go into a whole lot of detail but never mentions video games.--Tollwutig 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What we need though, is a verifiable source that says both that Thompson claimed that he trained on Halo, AND that no games were involved... Jabrwock 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know just haven't found it yet.... and I only have access to stuff online.--Tollwutig 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Malvo himself claimed that he was trained on video games. [1] [2] (near end of article).

Yes the article mentions that Malvo stated he trained on video games but the claim that the games were used to desensitize him to violence was made by the doctor not by Malvo himself. The article also states that the prosicution used that fact that millions of people play the same games and none of them have acted in the same manor. Also the article contains no quote from Malvo that he trained on the games it just states that he said he did. Im not saying that it is not a valid article but I don't think that it contains enough information to prove Jack's prediction --SleepyDan 16:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's kind of in Malvo's best interest to state that he was "brainwashed" by a game into thinking it's ok for him to kill, because that would affect his sentence. If a psychologist agreed, then ok, but Malvo's testimony is by default tainted. Jabrwock 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Delaware

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/NEWS/603200332/1006 Article which quotes his Testimony for the Delaware legislation--Tollwutig 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't even speech," Thompson said, holding up a video-game display box. "This is software that enables a machine to allow a player to play a game." Jabrwock 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats one for the wikiquote for sure.Tollwutig 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thompson vs. NIMF & Walsh

Found a bunch of articles detailing Thompson's response to Walsh's letter.

Lawyer Jack Thompson bitten, bites back - The Inquirer UK

Thompson has now responded with a cynical open letter of his own, in which he claims the relationship between retail partners, their legal teams and Target, who fund the NIMF is to blame for the disassociation.

"Dr. Walsh's efforts are funded by Target and by a foundation run by Best Buy lawyer and Best Buy Director Elliot Kaplan," J.T. continued, "I am suing Target and Best Buy over the Bully game, which both Target and Best Buy are pre-selling. You connect the dots."

CBS Interview

CBS GameCore: Jack Thompson Interview

You see, the industry is selling these games to kids whose parents are reckless.

How does free speech factor in?

There is no right of children to buy adult entertainment. None.

This has been disproven in multiple court cases, so if it's gonna go in the article,there has to be some courter points refrencing the supreme court ruling of the 70's that stated that minors do have 1st amendment rights as far as violence in media goes. Also we could referance recent ruling in illinois and washington, as well as michigan and californa. Just suggestions.(216.207.124.226 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Jabrwock 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

JT: "I just successfully sued Best Buy and compelled them to institute a new nationwide policy." anyone know to what this relates, and what the actual outcome was? I recall something of the nature, where some out of court agreement was made.... SanderJK 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thompson sued retailer Best Buy Co. Inc. under a Florida statute that prohibits the sale of sexual materials deemed harmful to minors, and argued the sale of violent and sexually explicit videos to minors was a public nuisance and a public safety issue. Thompson v. Best Buy, No. 04-23568 (Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct.). Best Buy agreed to enforce a nationwide policy, beginning this month, whereby the company would seek the identification of any person who looks 21 or younger and tries to buy M-rated videos. Law.com I recommend finding out what the outcome of that suit was, from court documents. I don't know if he dropped the suit because they agreed to enforce their policy, or if that was the settlement agreed upon. I do know that after his little "sting" stunt with his son, he claimed they were in violation of that agreement, and said he was going to file another suit. But I don't know if he did or not. Jabrwock 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does that say "videos" instead of "videogames"? SanderJK 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably just a typo. Jabrwock 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, i just noted that the "Columbine times 10" quote is in this. SanderJK 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that he failed to provide proof of either the Suit being succesful, but I do recall seeing that after the defandants, I.E best buy filled a motion to dismiss for Failure to state a claim, thompson withdrew the case. however, records of that case are unlocated at this time. I will search. It is notable as wel, that his supposed "Sting" never had any proof behind it and never had any verification from anyone, including thompson himself. Someone may wish to include that bit of info as well. A through search of 40 major news sites, game and non game, show no proof from thompson, at any point, was forth coming. He makes a series of claims, but refuses to provide evidance. May be something to investigate for the article. It's important to show that if thompson is making claims without proof or verification, it should be shown. (216.207.124.226 03:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Yeah the article on Jack has more proof and verification than the man himself, sad really--Tollwutig 18:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Adults and Children

If Jack Thompson was only about restricting games to children, he wouldn't be as much of a nutcase as he is (he'd still be a nut for other reasons, of course). But the fact is, he seems to project the feeling that only children play video games, and no games should be marketed to adults anyway, because no adults play video games. It's not just that he's trying to get kids to stop playing, he's trying to get EVERYONE to stop playing. I believe the article should convey this information, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so. Anyone have quotes along these lines? Fieari 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of has repeatedly stated that his only goal is to restrict children's access to adult media, but he has frequently attempted to prevent media from being available to anyone" (see Cop Killer, Bully, 2 Live Crew, etc) Jabrwock 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thompson's lawsuits

It would be helpful if we knew what lawsuits he's filed in Florida. (Miami-Dade County, Florida, Circuit Court) If anyone was able to get lawsuit titles & short descriptions + resolution from the courthouse that would be handy. Jabrwock 22:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It has occured to me that it may help Wiki, in there effort for verification, to Contact Dennis Mccauley of GP. While article from GP may not be veiwed as "verifiable", dennis has many of thompsons own press releases that can be verified, and so should be included in the article. I know that thompson got all on wiki's case about the article being "negitive", but if what it says is verifed as his own words, I hardly see how he'd have any argument. Just a thought.(216.207.124.226 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

That would stink of original research, not to mention Thompson would just as likely say Dennis made it all up. I say if can get Dennis to release them, and someone host them, to put them in Wikiquote. --Tollwutig 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I would assume that most people look up Jack Thompson in order to see the attorney rather than the actor or football player. Shouldn't this article be the main redirect? --Michiel Sikma 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson was the original location of the article. It was changed because it was deemed necessary. I don't think it'll be changed back.--Vercalos 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can at least put the disambiguation page at Jack Thompson (disambiguation), and have Jack Thompson redirect either there or here. That way, we can use {{Otherpeople}} at the top of this page to link to that disambiguation page. I have no problem with keeping this page with the (attorney) parenthetical. Fieari 08:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But why was it changed, Vercalos? You can state that it was changed to be like it is now, which is a fact, but that's not really argumentative; my argument is that the attorney is much more a popular search than the actor or football player, and that it would save a whole lot of people an extra click if the articles were named to reflect this. --Michiel Sikma 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold. Jack Thompson now redirects here. Each of the three Jack Thompsons has a link to the disambiguation page, which is located at Jack Thompson (disambiguation). I'm reluctant to move this page to plain old Jack Thompson, but this should be satisfactory, I think. Fieari 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I also went and fixed the redirect for Jack thompson. --Michiel Sikma 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You looked at the older atricle and said"well,im no expert on the topic,so im just gonna go ahead and edit everything in the old article was true. people voted to keep it. jack thompson is not a guardian o the children anti-obsecenity figure that he so persistantly makes himself out to be. he is a cowardly,bad-spirited,prejudice,ignorant,hypocrite of a bible-thumping loser thats more likey to make me kill then any game could. .—This unsigned comment was added by Grahamr,the Gilnean Pally (talk • contribs) .

Did you bother checking the sub-articles? They're listed at the bottom under "See Also"--Vercalos 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the article, do some research. Find some verifiable sources. The article should be NPOV, but NPOV can still show how the man acts, it just must let the reader decide if he is a lunatic or not.--Tollwutig 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a great article. Almost every other sentence is cited. I didn't really believe in citing everything one writes before, but this has made me think otherwise. --Michiel Sikma 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a header that is labled "Criticisms" in this article? Like most people one Wikipedia that have political or other important influence, there should be a section that is "Criticisms." (on the other topics, I'm disappointed by the fact that so much information was taken out of this article. Let's try and build it up again)TheSun 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this - obviously there is alot of criticism being made against this person, there should be a section for this. Sfacets 01:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WCCO Interview

http://www.wccoradio.com/pages/3648.php

Goes on air to lambast NIMF, claim Hot Coffee included anal sex, and claim the FBI and the Secret Service found a causal link between video game play and school shootings.

There is a published report from the FBI & SS made after Columbine, but it finds that video games played little to no role in school shootings. I can't remember the report title, I'll see if I can track it down. 207.47.184.113 05:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this interview is full of false claims. What is needed is the following to add to it broken down by factual errors:

Hot Coffee included Anal Sex: pretty sure there plenty of articles, and possibly TT's site which describes what is in the Hot Coffee scene.

FBI found Video Game Link in Colimbine, need to reference that report stating the opposite.

NIMF receives funds from Best Buy / or director of Best Buy. NIMF is a non for profit, and should list thier donors. Also gonna look up the Foundation Thompson claims give money to NIMF. Most foundations list the charities they give to.--Tollwutig 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the NIMF claim, is that Target donates money to NIMF directly (Best Buy, you need to follow a chain through a bunch of organizations to follow the money), and yet Target got an awful score in NIMF's annual report card. So it's pretty obvious that donations != special treatment. Jabrwock 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just traced the link back from Best Buy to NIMF its like 4 websites to make that connection. Also considering that Cersii of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP is apparently the one who runs the Foundation, and the Private Foundation you must request for donations.--Tollwutig 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are those Secret Service & FBI reports on Columbine that Thompson claimed find a causal link between violent games and school violence:

Final Report & Findings of the Safe School Initiative (pdf) (2002) Report by the Secret Service on school shootings and their causes. Discusses statistics on shooters viewing of violent media, but makes not attempt to indicate any causal link.
The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective (pdf) (2000) Report by the FBI on school shootings. Mentions that shooters demonstrated an "unusual" facination with violent media, but did not claim that it was a causal link.

Jabrwock 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Wikipedia in article?

How come nothing is mentioned about the "Wikipedia issue?" It certainly is noteworthy as the story was widely circulated and even forced the article to be locked. 69.156.205.72 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How widely circulated was it? If it was picked up by legitimate news sources, which I don't think it was, then I don't think there would be much of an argument against including it. Again, though, I don't think anyone outside the Wikipedia community really noticed that much. --Maxamegalon2000 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Google news comes up with nothing. It has been reported on numerous internet sites though. In order of Google Pagerank: digg.com, gamepolitics (I still don't see why we can't use them as a source...), news.gaminghorizon.com, arstechnica.com, gaminggroove.com (quoting gamepolitics), and numerous commentary blogs. Fieari 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even though he himself confirmed that he "corrected" his own entry, the confirmation comes from posts made on GamePolitics, and all those posts were filtered when his IP got banned by LiveJournal... So even if GP was a valid source, they wouldn't be able to use it. I DO think though that the letter he wrote to Wikipedia should be a valid source. I'm sure some admin has a copy... Jabrwock 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikipedia would not consider Wikipedia as a credible source.

Comment from 68.9.46.93

The following comment was left in the article by 68.9.46.93: "someone has um kinda done something to this page, the wikiquote link is gone, and only one eternal link of about twenty still exists. just hoping someone will fix this soon." Mikker ^... 09:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "sources" are newspapers that don't have on-line links to the articles, although I did put in quite a few "archive" links so that people who wanted to pay for a view of the original article could get one if they didn't have copies of that paper on microfilm at their local library. Jabrwock 16:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the WikiQuote is gone because 9/10 of the quotes were from GamePolitics, which has filtered all his comments since he was banned. So even if GP was considered a "verifiable source", the source of the quotes is now gone... Jabrwock

Information on why Wikiquote is not in the article currently is here. --Keyne 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJack_Thompson_%28attorney%29_archive9_584b.html"

Category: Talk archives