Talk:Thomas Penfield Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

RickK, JonGwynne, shall we discuss this? Overtly-biased was probably over the line, but the other comments did contain fact, and, perhaps RickK should have edited them instead of reverting? -- Baylink 16:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, in this particular situation, I think "overtly biased" is actually NPOV because that was the ruling of the US Appellate Court and the basis for them to overturn his findings. So, I would argue that when I say his were "overtly biased", I'm not expressing my personal point-of-view but rather reporting the findings of the higher court. I changed it to "extremely controversial" anyway as a gesture of compromise. However, if everyone agrees, I'd like to go back to "overtly biased" because, as I said, it is not only an accurate characterization but is fair comment. BTW, I think it is important to say that he was "overtly biased" so that there is no chance of someone inferring that the bias was hidden (i.e. covert) or underhanded. He made no effort to cover up the bias which was to his credit. Anyway, he really was extraordinarily out of line. I watched his conduct on TV while the case was going on in absolute shock - as did many. It was as if he was trying to either become famous as the quintessential example of how not to handle a high-profile case and thus guarantee his immortality in US law-school lectures for the rest of time or that he'd just "lost it" and was ready to be put out to pasture. The funny thing is that I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft but his conduct actually had me taking their side in things. They've done some pretty unforgivable things in their history, but Jackson turned the opportunity to hold them accountable into a farce. The fact that a judge would speak this way about the principles of a case is bad enough but to do it in public and while the case is still pending is simply "off-the-charts".--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Rick, I have the page on my watch-list, you don't have to write to me on my user page.--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the ruling used those words, you could have avoided the NPOV fracas by slightly different phrasing to make that point clearer. (And you still can :-) I personally don't have a problem with it now, but RickK, if you still do, I'd suggest either editing to fix, or calling Jon on the specific places he needs to quote-mark and reference better. --Baylink 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's be fair here...

For this article to be anything close to fair, you'd have to mention the rather blatant lying that microsoft's legal team tried to get away with during the trial. Jackson didn't start out with anything against MS, he became disgusted with them after they lied to him several times in the course of the trial. That little stunt with the edited videotape, for one thing...

You're certainly free to add mention of that to the article on the trial. However, it isn't relevant here.--JonGwynne 01:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jon, you are clearly not at all objective on this subject. Give it a rest.

So you say whoever-you-are... care to point out any factual mistakes in the article? I'm not the one saying that Jackson behaved in an astonishingly out-of-line manner, the US Court of Appeals were the ones who smacked him on the nose with the proverbial rolled-up newspaper. If you have a beef, take it to them.--JonGwynne 17:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jon, you can report the findings of the appeals court without your shrill denounciations of the Judge. Sure, it sucks that MS beat the rap, and that Jackson may have shared responsibility for that, (although realistically it was Clinton's loss of the election that gave them a walk), but you are still way out of line here.

Sorry, whoever-you-are, but you didn't point out any factual mistakes so I'm going to put the original version back. I'm going to assume that since you're going to get snippy about this (e.g. "shrill denuciations", "POV ravings") you don't have any substantive contributions to offer. BTW, you're wrong about Clinton's election loss being a factor. I assume you're talking about the fact that the Democrats lost the White House in 2000. Clinton didn't run; he wasn't eligible to run again and probably wouldn't have run even if he had been because of the impeachment scandal.--JonGwynne 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other cases?

There's already an article on the Microsoft case. I think a biography ought to be more broad than this one issue. I came to Wikipedia to look him up after catching this reference -- [1] -- in which Jackson dismissed a murder case involving the American bombing of two Libyan cities. The article has him comparing Microsoft to gangland murders, but there's no mention of that, either, here. I think this article needs to be much broader, and to include some personal information. --Thatnewguy 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Small background item here [2] ... Also a follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal is available to those with a subscription. --Thatnewguy 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)