Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)/archive10

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.

I just wanted to say that I'm back. I had been posting here under the user name 'Plagiarize' but I was banned because it was apparently similar to another user's name. Now I'm using my real name, and you can do a google on me to verify I'm the same person if you like. I still believe the new article is an improvement on the old, and wanted to commend everyone on the work they've been doing on it. It's getting a bit overlong again but that list of references is an impressive sight. --Ryan Acheson 17:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

External Links

Would it be "libel" to link to some related pages in the "External Links" section? I'm thinking StartTruth.com and gamepolitics.livejournal.com/. Citing them or not, they do provide further information, and I believe it would be a valuble contribution to the article. Fieari 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


The point is that they are not "verifiable", especially since Jack got himself banned from livejournal, erasing his gamepolitics comments. I personally think theat they should've stayed (when they existed), but that's another conversation for somewhere. I'm not sure where, in fact.ColdSalad 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using them as a source, I'm saying link to them for further reading. They're on topic, is what I'm saying. Both discuss Jack frequently, even if his direct comments are no longer there. Fieari 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Still doesn't meet verifiability. Also both site are rather POV. Linking them while not directly affecting the article would give a POV slant against Thompson.--Tollwutig 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
yet linking to his own website isn't giving a pov slant towards him? don't be ridiclous, wikipedia is not resoinble for outside links and libel that might be containted within. 203.112.2.212 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you read FLABAR.ORG? It actually slants against him more than anything we could write.--Tollwutig 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a link to gamepolitics is valid since it deals with what a big part of the article is about, as well as the fact that they publish the most info on the subject as far as i know. I will not deny it has a POV, if there is such a site that takes the opposite stance it could be added to. Adding links is also about giving as much information as possible, and gamepolitics writes about many things wiki doesn't for notability, verifiability and NPOV reasons.
Starttruth.com is another matter, that is a site set up to combat Thompson's now defunct Stopkill.com, if the latter was present we could present both, but adding what amounts to little more then a "hate site" is unprofessional. SanderJK 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been coverd about 20x already that Gamepolitics.com is not going to be considered a valid source because it is technically a message board on Liverjournal. Any links like that would be removed summarily by Michael Snow. Thankfully Dennis usually links his sources in the article so it's easy to go out and get the mainstream source.--Tollwutig 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I realize blogs are not valid sources for wikipedia by wiki rules, and i respect that (though i do not necissarily agree). However, we are not talking about adding information from the blog to the page, we are redirecting people who have come here to the source with the most up to date information about an a field closely related and completely intertwined with this articles subject. If you are reading about Jack Thompson, there is a good chance you want to learn more about events regarding the Gaming Industry & Politics. Not to mention the fact that many events dealing with Jack Thompson have started or have become involved with that site. It is of note that the current article does not mention the site once, even though the majority of his fame and infamy comes from his behavings on that site. SanderJK 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur - it's a good primary source. It certainly has its faults but its mere presence on livejournal is not one of them. As stated before, I think this blind obsession with certain types of sources and unwarranted rejection of others is harmful and ignorant. It's all about context and intent. I would not rely on Gamepolitics.com for a scholarly analysis of the industry but it certainly has significant credibility as a popular voice in the gaming industry. --ElKevbo 15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, although it shouldn't read "where Thompson posts many of his press releases", because Dennis almost always deletes them now, he's tired of Thompson spamming his forum... Jabrwock 20:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you personally, but as shown previously due to the blog nature, Michael Snow doesn't seem to want it used or has not in the past, he has vanished from here recently. I also agree that GP is a great primary source for Political Gaming issues. Maybe a a link to GP's wiki article would suffice? Since it then would link to GP itself.--Tollwutig 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I do think it's important to distinguish between using GP and linking to it. With an external link, the reader can judge the site on their own. --Maxamegalon2000 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The gamepolitics story on wiki is a) badly written. b) 90% about Jack Thompson. It would be weird to link to a article about subject when the main page on subject makes no mention of it. Also, i was not under the impression that we needed approval from Michael Snow to do anything just consensus. SanderJK 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur on both points. A link to GP is appropriate in the right context. And we don't need Michael Snow or anyone else's explicit permission. --ElKevbo 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately Snow has the backing of the wiki-foundation as he was asked to rewrite the article post lawsuit threat. He has already shown if necessary he will revert anything not properly sourced, and can get by with a 3RR. I'm not disagreeing with you on a personal level just being devil's advocate in hopes that we don't have to go back to extreme strict scrutiny.--Tollwutig 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If Snow has the backing and authority of the foundation then it needs to be clearly stated. There is obvious confusion on this point and even administrators don't know about this. Without such a clear statement he looks like an editor run amok creating and enforcing his own arbitrary standards. I'm sure he's acting in good faith and my issue is with the foundation giving someone responsibility and authority to singlehandedly take over an article without publicly backing or identifying that person. If there has been such an announcement, please point me to it because I (and others) have completely missed it. --ElKevbo 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Snow is the one who was allowed to unlock from WP:Office and rewrite the article. He also has been clear that he'll revert any non verifiable sources. Also initially there was an Admin backing him up. --Tollwutig 14:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thompson still claiming to be on the Strickland Suit

A lawyer for the victims' families said the Supreme Court's refusal to grant an appeal set the stage for what could be the nation's first trial over killings blamed on video games, perhaps as early as January. "No one has ever before survived a motion to dismiss, so we're excited," said attorney Jack Thompson of Miami. Court rejects appeal in Alabama suit blaming game for slayings -The Associated Press Jabrwock 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I hope this gets back to Judge Moore. Maybe Thompson will get some kind of reprimand.--Tollwutig 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see an explicit claim by Thompson that he is still a party to or directly involved in this case. It could just as easily be slipshod journalism or merely poor writing on the part of the AP. --ElKevbo 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
True. Wouldn't surprise me though, if he had, because he still spams GamePolitics about "his" case, "his" clients, and "his" lawsuit. But I guess we'll need a major source to quote him on that before putting it up. Jabrwock 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. Thompson was quoted by Yahoo news/Gamespot:

Thompson removed himself from the case in November, 2005, after defense attorneys asked Fayette County circuit judge James Moore to remove the lawyer for violations of legal ethics... A defiant Thompson today said, "I am counsel for all of the plaintiffs, they are still my clients, I was the one who won the First Amendment argument in the hearing on November 3, 2005, which trial record was what was appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, and I fully expect to be in the courtroom trying the case when it is tried." GTA killer case clears hurdle Jabrwock 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

oh, and props to mazinger_z for finding it and posting it on GamePolitics. Jabrwock
I could of sworn he tried to remove himself, but got kicked of? IanC 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Oh and he is still claiming hes on it....
Correct. The judge started getting ticked at him for violating the gag order, so Thompson requested that he be excused. The judge denied that request, and revoked his Pro Hac Vice instead, effectively kicking him off the case and preventing him from practicing in Alabama at all. 207.47.184.113 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to say, better article...

Much more accurate and objective synopsis of Thompson. More relevant info, more citations (important), and less commentary or irrelevant focus on his continued, rampant trolling of various blogs like some twelve-year-old. Shows exactly who he is, what he's about and what he's been involved with. His antics are also detailed on side articles, so if anyone wants to find out how much of a troll he is, they can. Could use more results from the lawsuits, however... 151.159.200.136 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its important that theres some detatched content on his antics. An unknowledgeable reader coming in from reading an article on him might not understand his behavior or the reactions people give him. Hellome 14:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Grossman alliance

This has been removed because "gamepolitics.com isn't a valid source either":

Thompson has also been allied with anti-video game violence author and military science academic Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman[1].

I think "allied" is too vague a term to use; so, if this information is restored, it should be presented more clearly.

But, a bit more than five and a half minutes into an MP3 of Jack Thompson's appearance on Phyllis Schlafly Live (dated "03-11-06"; I assume that's 11 March 2006, not 3 November 2006 or 6 November 2003), Jack Thompson describes Lt. Col. Grossman as "one of our experts in our Alabama case; and he—he file—filed an affidavit for us, along with three other experts, who said that, but for the video-game training—that this teenager would not have been able to kill these cops"; this comes about two minutes after Thompson mentions the "lawsuit on behalf of three police officers' families, the loved ones" of "police officers [who] were shot and killed by a teenager who literally trained on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to kill them".

It may be that filing an affidavit on Thompson's side is an indicator of some form of alliance; and this is Thompson's own words (though, of course, he could be in error). I got to that MP3 from this Talk page on 15 March 2006.

President Lethe 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text because, well, gamepolitics.com isn't a valid source, but if the user had cited the interview, I probably wouldn't have removed it. That being said, I agree that "allied" isn't the right word, especially if Grossman was only one of four experts who only filed an affidavit. --Maxamegalon2000 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As discussed above, your reason for removing the text is bullshit. However, I don't disagree with the removal of this text as I just don't see how it's particularly relevant, important, or interesting. As others have noted, this article is growing in size and we need to be selective in what is included. --ElKevbo 13:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I disagree with your critique of my reason. For the time being, however, I'm more than happy to try and maintain the high standard User:Michael Snow has requested. --Maxamegalon2000 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
this is the relevance - Dave Grossman is one of the leading figures in the US anti-games violence movement and certainly is more identified with the movement than Eugene F. Provenzo, who is given 3-4 lines in the article. Bwithh 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done any research on this particular claim, but it sounds to me like Jack Thompson's association with Grossman is more cursory and specific to this incident, whereas Thompson and Provenzo have collaborated on articles and such. I may be wrong. --Maxamegalon2000 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Metalgearsolid.org

As important as I think the account is, I think we really need stronger sources for it. The news story doesn't even mention Thompson, and, as a primary source, metalgearsolid.org itself cannot be used as a source until it is used by another source. I just thought I'd give some time before I feel I have to remove it. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Although i would like to see it included, the current size gives it undue weight. It certainly shows off many character traits, but he is not in any way involved beyond the email he sent. If it was sourced it could be included as a single paragraph, which is the same almost all other activism details get. SanderJK 00:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was hoping someone would be able to find a reliable source for it, but I couldn't find anything, so I'm going to remove it. --Maxamegalon2000 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Bah. Why did the news services pick up that Brandon Vedas crossover fake version of the gamer's suicide but not the more explosive and news-worthy Jack Thompson response? I mean, at least Jack's letter was true. - Hbdragon88 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

JT sues Florida Bar again?

Can anyone find a credible source for this? He spammed GP with a press release to the Florida Supreme Court, saying he'd sued the Florida Bar in federal court today. Judge Moreno is handling the case. Jabrwock 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet. --Maxamegalon2000 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I have. Because of the number of incidents, I made a new section. --Maxamegalon2000 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how long it would take to get added to the article.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/041306AttorneySues.html Jabrwock 14:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Law.com reprinted the Daily Business Review article. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144933474083 Jabrwock 16:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

Why is the book "Out of Harm's Way" listed (by itself) in the Bibliography section? As far as I can tell, it isn't even referenced anywhere. --ElKevbo 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's used as a reference now. --Maxamegalon2000 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Any objections to me (or anyone else) deleting the Bibliography section? I don't see a need to list the source in two different places (Bibliography and References). --ElKevbo 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. --Maxamegalon2000 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. --ElKevbo 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity with Jack Thompson (actor)

The other Jack Thompson is an exceptionally well known Australian film actor who's been around for years and made a large number of films. Would it not be more appropriate to make him the central [Jack Thompson] article? Or at least, make [Jack Thompson] redirect to the Jack Thompson (disambiguation) page? How notable is this lawyer, exactly? Stevage 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm somewhat familiar with the lawyer and not at all with the actor, so I'm not really sure. I know there's never been any talk of making the actor the subject of the main article, but for a while Jack Thompson did lead to a disambiguation page. Just based on the subject matter, I would guess that most people who look for the "Jack Thompson" article are thinking of the lawyer; he's probably the most prominent video game critic in the United States right now, and certainly one of the most hated figures in the video game Internet community. I wouldn't oppose moving the attorney article back to Jack Thompson (attorney) and redirecting to the disamb page again; it would be nice to have a perspective from someone who's more interested in the actor. --Maxamegalon2000 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the actor should be the primary page, but the fact that the attorney is basically unknown to people outside the US indicates the American-centric bias of the way it was. When I initially got involved, I made the disambiguation page the first port of call, and it really ought to stay that way. I note that of the recently created links in articles to plain Jack Thompson (old ones were already cleaned up), both the actor and the attorney were represented. --Michael Snow 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Disambig page seems reasonble. Shall we RFC it? Stevage 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Leave it at the Disambig page. It's not hard to figure out which one you're looking for.--70.10.61.64 14:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)-Tollwutig Bah didn't sign in.

I think when this conversation started, [Jack Thomspon] was the actor. Now it's the disambig page. This is a good outcome. Stevage 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I Think He's Back

Special:Contributions/172.169.58.156 --Maxamegalon2000 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

so he's spammed wikipedia that he is suing gamepolitics.com and wikipedia.org. So much for rewriting his article.
What a jerk. They took out all the unreferenced stuff. So if he doesn't like it, he can just go sue the newspapers that originally printed it. But he wouldn't dare. Jabrwock 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that is him. He uses Comcast as his ISP, and I don't think that is an IP they use. (I could be wrong though). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just some punk on AOL [2]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New Legal Threats

Someone from the gamepolitics boards is running an auction to blow up an autographed copy of Jack's book, with the proceeds evidently going to charity. Here's the auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7609543430 Now this morning, he sends word that Jack's called him up threatening to sue if the auction isn't pulled. I'm still looking for a good "Reputable" source, but if nothing else it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Apparently his lawyers advised him to either a) offer to sell the book, b) tell Thompson to go away, or c) wait for Thompson to threaten him again... Jabrwock 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
eBay pulled the auction- the seller says he didn't have anything to do with it, so either eBay was being pedantic about his grammar or Jacky-boy managed to get eBay to pull it by waving threats at them. Not too difficult to do, since eBay's a bunch of (Extremely unencyclopedic adjectives) anyways...
Pulled it? It still shows up for me. --Michael Snow 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It was down for like an hour- could have just been a hiccup, so it's possible nobody has anything to do with it. False alarm?

It was originally pulled because he said the "proof of destruction" would be provided by video on DVD-R/CD-R, and eBay told him that would "promote bootlegging". So they pulled the auction. Also I believe he specified the charity in the auction, which was against the TOS. So he resubmitted with the offending text removed. Jabrwock 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would such a DVD-R/CD-R "promote bootlegging"? Whose copyright would be violated by distributing a video of the book getting destroyed? *Dan T.* 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it was less about what particular video, and just the fact that they seem to be against advertising the distribution of ANY video on burnt media. Otherwise people might start selling copies of movies, but using codewords like "my family vacation" or something. Basically it's so the MPAA doesn't sue them. Jabrwock 16:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That sort of thing shows that the MPAA (and similarly, the RIAA for the music industry) has way too much power... they claim an absurd degree of control over the whole concept of distributing audio or video in any form, because some of it might just possibly be pirated from one of their members. Those cartels need to be slapped down hard, somehow. *Dan T.* 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Really wish this would get some form of mainstream press. That way we could put it in the article.--Tollwutig 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly mainstream, but here's a few places that covered it: http://pspupdates.qj.net/Jack-Thompson-s-Book-Out-Of-Harms-Way-gets-in-harms-way-/pg/49/aid/21657 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477654 http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2006/4/12/3559

Picture change

Why did we revert to the old picture, i thought consensus was that the new one was a lot better. SanderJK 20:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Maxamegalon2000 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Which picture was agreed on? This black and white one is obviously outdated. Hellome 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I prefer the WCPO-TV pic. --67.133.106.250 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Androktasie
There was a comment in one of the archives; the user preferred thte WCPO-TV one because it represtened JT as he is most well-known - as an older, balding man, instead of the younger and more youthful current one. Since it appears that the WCPO-TV one may go, I think someone should get one from the Out of Harm's Way book cover. - Hbdragon88 06:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The WCPO image might be funny, but it really is pretty poor quality and generally isn't something one'd see in an encyclopedic context, unless there was a particular focus on that event in time. The B&W image is good enough to be both respectable and very neutral, but a more current (non-book cover) image would be a good thing to have, so long as it wasn't needlessly provacative. Let's let the history speak of him, and the image represent him fairly, even if it is a few years old. --Keyne 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's his most recognized image. Really the prototypical Jack Thompson. The grayscale doesnt really look like him. And as a current figure in events a historical picture doesnt represent him well, as if you were to see him on the street you wouldn't recognize him. The time was in the wake of the Hot Coffee furor, and that is really what brings him to the spotlight today, and why this is an unstable article. The WCPO represents the beginning of his current tirade and his widespread recognition. Hellome 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the WCPO picture's really not that great a picture. Can't someone who lives in Florida just take his picture, especially if he's going to be visible for his Florida Bar suit? I'm being semi-serious here. -Maxamegalon2000 18:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we need stalking charges. What is bad about the WCPO? It exemplifies him. Hellome 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. To me, it looks a little stretched, and the station logo doesn't feel very professional. Although I agree the WCPO photo does exemplify Thompson better and it is more recent, I like the black and white photo better because it seems more encyclopedic. But if there's consensus about the WCPO picture, I wouldn't fight it. --Maxamegalon2000 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the current photo is more professional. Given a choice between current and professional-looking, in this instance I go with "professional-looking." It would be childish and unprofessional to insist on displaying a low-quality photograph simply because we dislike him. --ElKevbo 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're really not professionals, at least i'm not, and Thompson himself has said that wikipedia is his favorite site for fiction. But when you can compare the picture in a reference source to a picture taken today and not recognize the similarity, I think that is worse than appearing unprofessional because it actually is unprofessional. On the stretching, should his head be taller? I have another instance of the same photo I've found with that, and it looks worse. I also have one with his face more centralized cropping out the logo. I could upload here. Hellome 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be the case, but the content we provide in articles is supposed to be similar in quality to that of a "professional." Again, if you have a newer, clearer and less generally ugly photo, by all means. The B&W one, discounting age, is still the better of the two current ones that I've noticed (ignoring vandalisms). Let's keep the higher standard operating in effect. --Keyne 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with people who favor the more recent TV capture and those who favor the older, professional black-and-white portrait. Why not both? The article seems long enough for both. If both are used, perhaps either of these two options would be good:

  • The B&W photo goes in the intro, and the TV cap goes in a section about his anti-games mission.
  • The TV cap goes in the intro, and the B&W photo goes in the section on his early career.

Any thoughts? President Lethe 23:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the cropped one. I think this is a good intro. Hellome 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson

That's still pretty low quality. It'd be fine to put later in the article as proposed by President Lethe above, particularly if someone has some more information to put in the caption (i.e. "Thompson was interviewed on [TV station] on [date] about [subject].") --ElKevbo 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

When was that image taken? I'm going to put the image into the article now, lower down, as discussed (although I would also prefer a more current one higher, I can understand the quality issues-- getting a new image would be a very good idea). As soon as someone has a date, please put it in. Fieari 07:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to put some picture up at the top. It just looks odd a big blank space with nothing there. Until we can get another just use the B&W one. I know there is no way of getting a photo from Thompson himself.. maybe we can ask for a copy of the Out of Harm's way Book destruction? Oh and we REALLY need to get someone to cover that, just so it can go into the article.-Tollwutig 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


The orphan bot was the one that removed the image for being unsourced, anyone remember where the B/W pic came from? SanderJK 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we just put this one at the top either way? I think its for the best. Hellome 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to have to disagree. If we're going to have to replace the B&W photo, lets find something respectable for the top image. The WCPO image, while important, is really very poor. I'm not sure the Out of Harm's Way picture would be good to use either (permissions problem?) --Keyne 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagree as well. The WCPO image is poor quality and is a live action capture of him talking making him look unnecessarily like a dumbass.(he is one but no need to emphasize it too POV) The Out of Harm's Way photo would be under copy write. I do think an image of the book would be ok for now, but kinda advertisey.--Tollwutig 16:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Found the original source for the B&W photo. Until we get a more respectable image for the top, I'm going to revert the two photo positions. --Keyne 23:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No point in putting up a bad picture of him, just to make him look bad. Stick witht he B&W. Let the article speak the truth, and let the readers form their own oppinion of the man. The more respect we show for Jack Thompson and the facts surrounding him, the less anyone will be able to point and say that this was only written to sling mud at him. Marrow Chiller 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The black & white got deleted again, not sure if it was done by a bot or not..... i'm not well versed enough in these things to stop it, but if someone can get it sorted once and for all it would be greatly appreciated. SanderJK 10:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, when did theflabar.org go down?

It's been replaced with one of those register.com pages! --Maxamegalon2000 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He took it off. He has registered the domain www.jackandgoliath.com , but hasn't put anything there yet Hellome 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been put back up, but with actual formatting. (i.e. he used Bold type.) There is still a Home link although the site only has one page. Looks like it's the same spiel but he has his 12 year old actually edit it to make it readable.--Tollwutig 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It actually appears to have been hacked now. When accessing that page in internet explorer, a song about 'the biggest idiot in the world' plays on loading the page. It's reportedly been that way for a while, so I'd guess JT has stopped monitoring the site.--Ryan Acheson 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New Litigation

Both the North Country Gazette and Daily Business Review (hefty registration fee required) are reporting that JBT has officially sued the Florida Bar over the recent investigation (and SLAPP actions).

Think it'd be worthwhile to put a mention in now, or would it be better to avoid cataloguing the suit before it got started? It'd probably go in the present FlaBar section if we choose to include it. --Keyne 12:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanked

What the whole thing a little while ago with this page and him getting it blanked? was that legal action, or effectively vandalism? And why, if anyone can muck those depths of reason. Hellome 14:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably vandalism. Jack would contact the Wikimedia foundation to get the article shut down. Or he woluld post a JACK THOMPSON RESPONDS thing - he just doesn't blank and leave it empty. - Hbdragon88 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Censorship allegations

Hey, whats the deal with this article? And what the hell is this i hear about wikipedia higher-ups censoring the article due to some legal threat and such? (ref: Wikitruth) Anyone want to shed some light on this? --NightDragon 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


As near as I can tell, most of the article wasn't actually censored, but split off into numerous sub-articles.--Vercalos 10:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the article was reduced to a 2 line stub and locked for approximately 4 days. SanderJK 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically Thompson threatened them, so they locked the article. And now the article is back, but with one key difference. Now it has 60+ references to external sources, so he can't claim they're making ANY of this up... Litigation issue solved. Jabrwock 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is now one of the best sourced articles out there. Also why there is strict scrutiny when it comes to sourcing the article. Something I am in favor of.--Tollwutig 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The censorship is detailed on pixelante nation forums ([3]) speaking of which, I think the pixelante story should be mentioned. On that forum some people have cited Thompson saying gamers had misunderstood his intentions creating it, but they implied that it had been "reclaimed" like a racial slur.Hellome 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hellome, if you have an acceptable source, go for it. I doubt you can find one, though, as a Google News Search shows one result for "pixelante", and it's not an acceptable one. And I don't think I need to point out by now that forums are certainly not acceptable sources.
As to charges of "censorship," I'm not sure this qualifies. The Wikitruth page claims that the original article was fully cited, but the "citation needed" template appears 18 times, and of the 99 in-article external links, 41 of them are to LiveJournal posts, which Wikipedia policy has been against longer than this article has been an issue. Call the insistence on stricter sources "selective policy enforcement" if you'd like, (I certainly would), but if we can't enforce the policies on all articles, shouldn't the ones where lawsuits are threatened be the ones where we do? --Maxamegalon2000 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Seperate Tab for Penny arcade

I have a question. Has anyone though of Adding a seperate link to detail his conflict with Penny Arcade? Just a question. Thanks. 68.225.202.154 09:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Penny Arcade conflict is the lack of reputable sources. If you can find some link them in the talk pages and we'll write something up. Note Livejournals, and other Internet Forums are not reputable sources, which includes Gamepolitics. Of course you're welcome to edit the article yourself, but if it isn't sourced it'll just get reverted.--Tollwutig 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK To actually answer your question. Really when you look at Thompson's whole career, the Penny Arcade conflict was just a minor event. Over all since the re-write, most of the editors have come to a consensus that the old article focused TOO much on the video game debate. In reality Video Games are just a small portion of his career. So creating a separate lnk to detail an over all minor conflict isn't necessary. If an article was created on the subject it'd probably get AfDed almost immediately and deleted at Thompsoncruft. In fact I probably would do so myself. --Tollwutig 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you do want to make an offshoot article, i suggest that you use http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135940.html and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136188.html as a basis. gamespot.com news is a fact checking, dedicated source, and would under my best understanding easily qualify for wikipedia's verifiability tests. I don't fully agree with the analysis that is unworthy of expansion though, since in this case he did contact local police complaining about harassment (by fax, which text is known as well), more then he did then in many other cases (including the more recent MSG forum debacle, or his gamepolitics.com trolling). He was thrown out quickly though, and told to seek a civil route. I'd weigh it as less then lawsuits, but probably above almost all of the media only incidents. SanderJK 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


The Penny-Arcade spat simply wasn't as notable as his other actions. His page is already getting very long, and any addition should probably weigh in similarly to what is already present. --Keyne 17:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


I would at least like to include a two lines something on the order of "Thompson then proceeded to contact the Seattle Police by fax, claiming extortion and harassment by Penny-Arcade. However the police department did not see any grounds for criminal investigation, and adviced Thompson to take civic action."
Note that this story appears, among others, on gamespot.com http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135979.html (initial report) http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/bully/news.html?sid=6136318 (contacting federal lawyer McKay) http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136737.html (Police redirecting it as a civil matter) and wired.com http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,69404,00.html. The fax itself appears on penny-arcade's front page here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/10/17#2837 (I know it's not verifiable by wiki standards, trying to find a copy elsewhere). The story also made, among others, digg, gamepolitics, joystiq and gameindustry.biz.
I certainly would weigh accusing and reporting to police a high profile website (Alexa 2293) above the Flowers for Jack, Sniper beltway allegations, his namecalling on Bully, the extensive quoting in the rap, video games and juveniles, and Other activities/Howard stern sections (which i feel has gotten a bit out of hand).
The line for me lies in wether to include the contacting of McKay, which though mentioned on wired and gamespot, did not seem to get any response. I'm doubtful of it due to it having no visible consequences. The contacting of the police seeking criminal charges seems to me more then enough to warrant 1-2 lines in an article though. SanderJK 11:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you honestly say that's as notable as calling Janet Reno out of the closet? Helping to get Howard Stern off-air? Leading the charge into censoring video-games? Sure, it's a nice bit of trivia (among his other similar actions to SLAPP/censor opponents--which many, many people do as well), but is it necessary? And, if included, can we keep it NPOV in the midst of similar instances which will invariably creep into the article? --Keyne 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not as notable as his lawsuits or his campaign vs. Reno, nor do i claim that. And my proposal does not give it equal weight. Is it less notable then him getting a quote in the washington post about the beltway sniper? Is it less notable then his critisism of the "Left Behind" videogame, which as far as i can see only appeared in one regional newspaper, yet gets an 8 line paragraph? Is it less notable then the Flowers for Jack incident, in which he was passively involved? I believe strongly that him seeking criminal investigation of perhaps the worlds premier webcomic deserves at least a mention. SanderJK 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'd shorten the whole Left Behind paragraph. The article is a bit long, and this would be a good point to do some trimming, as it is trivial.

Look at the sourcing of the Penny-Arcade.. to gamer's yes it was big, and probably to the Florida Bar when they got barraged by the Penny-Arcade Forumites, but Wired-news is really the only reputable source you can use out of those you listed. I know it sucks but Gamespot is really going to be one of those hard sales as reputable source. I really don't think Penny Arcade needs to be a seperate section, although if it's expanded slightly I have no real problems. --Tollwutig 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a seperate tab, just the inclusion of something among the line i have proposed, including that Thompson seeked to have a criminal investigation started but was waved off. Even if you disregard gamespot (see below) wired.com still reported this. I certainly believe it crosses the notable treshold, it crosses the verifiability treshhold, the only question that remains is how much weight to assign to it. I argue that it weighs heavier then quite some things currently in the article, and thus should be added. Somewhat on a tangent, i have tried four times now to get a definitive answer why gamespot.com is not a reputable source over the last 3 months here. Noone here has been able to satisfy me in this regards. I have the following arguments about why they should be considered a reputable source:
- Part of major coorperation (Cnet)
- It's own news section, with seperate staff and editors.
- A long reputation, with all of their articles since day 1 online
- High Alexa rank (I looked it up, 198, compared to wired's 600ish)
- Good reputation and protective of it's reputation
- Known to fact check (In all of the above linked articles they display this, including trying to contact McKay, the Seattle police, Penny Arcade and Thompson)
The only two arguments i have heard against them is that they are 1) an online source, which to me is an invalid argument based on the assumption that there is an automatic unbridgable gap between offline and online resources (That would make the whole wikipedia project seem silly) and 2) That they are automaticly biased because they are a specialist media. I will concede that they are specialists, however, Science is also a specialist source for scientific stories, does that make anything they publish biased? Wikipedia guidelines do not mention anything about not allowing specialist media (which apply in all fields of wikipedia, from science and sports to politics, history, humanities to economics). As far as specialist resources for gaming related matter goes, gamespot.com is one of the biggest players in the field. SanderJK 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the details of the Penny Arcade incident is under A modest video Game Proposal which is currently under AfD. Maybe rewrite that article with better citation to save it, then re-link the article to the main article.--Tollwutig 18:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Apparently someone is listing an AfD Jack Thompson and video game players and A Modest Video Game Proposal for Deletion. Most people are telling the nominator to relist. --Tollwutig 17:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thompson and video game players after a debate. The result is as follows:

merge to Jack Thompson (attorney). This is clearly a POV fork of that article. Any verifiable, neutral content should be merged with the Jack Thompson article. If none, the Jack Thompson and video game players article should be relisted for deletion in, say, a month or so

--Tony Sidaway 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything that can be merged into this article. Following the standards set by Michael Snow & friends, none of the content is verifiable. I don't want to make it sound like I disagree with the standards; I'm just saying we don't need a month to decide what can be moved to this article. You really could AfD Jack Thompson and video game players right now then. --Maxamegalon2000 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his mentions in webcomics are effectively self-verifying (assuming the links remain valid in the future), and were fairly easy to work in, so I've salvaged those and redirected the split-off article back to here. --Michael Snow 05:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you surprise me, Michael Snow. Sometimes you surprise me... --Maxamegalon2000 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What of his communication with Scott Ramsoomair at [4]?
Yeah, can we get a clarification on what I'm going to call the "self-verification doctrine"? To what types of media does it extend? --Maxamegalon2000 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Self-verification doctrine? Asking about types of media is the wrong question, though, always has been. The real issue is whether something is an appropriate, reputable source to support the statement being made. That depends as much on the statement as it does the type of source, probably more so. When stating that a bunch of webcomics mentioned Jack Thompson, a bunch of links that take you to webcomics mentioning Jack Thompson is primary source material. Anyone can look at the links and see that a bunch of webcomics did indeed mention Jack Thompson, that's what I mean by self-verifying. But to support a claim that Jack Thompson said or did X, obviously a webcomic isn't an acceptable source. --Michael Snow 06:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's about what I figured. I just wanted to make sure it's stated somewhere so we don't get a bunch of "OMG!!!!1!!1!!TEHarticle has COMIX!!1!soLETS add "HES A BIG MORON" too!!!1!!1!!1!!!!!!!1111oneexclamationpoint!!!" here. The thing is, I'm worried this could be a slippery slope towards "Scott Ramsoomair accused Thompson of..." and "according to Dennis McCauley, Jack has over 50 LiveJournal accounts...". I want to make sure this isn't that sort of loophole, and people are interpreting this right. --Maxamegalon2000 13:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason not to continue to that conclusion is because those kinds of examples ultimately contain unverified information (i.e., the underlying charge, which is probably the primary purpose for which they'd be offered). Whereas in the webcomics example, everything in the statement is verifiable by examining the source. --Michael Snow 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. I think this this has effectively clarified the policy. --Maxamegalon2000 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this guy's e-mail address?

I'm going to talk to him about how video games can't be murder simulators, and that there are as many, if not more, violent tv shows and movies.

Wikipedia does not have any personal contact information, such as email, of any of the subjects in our encyclopedia. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It would also be pretty much impossible. Everytime someone who his a gamer has tried to get a dialogue with Mr. Thompson, it has not gone well. This includes the Flowers for Jack thing, as well as many other tries. If you pronounce yourself a gamer he seems to automaticly assume that you are a brainless zombie spouting rockstar propaganda, possibly due to the devils influence. SanderJK 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if you want to get a dialogue with him pretend that you are for game legislation and stuff like that OR pretend that you are a concerned parent that knows very litlle about "the dangers of video games" and ask Jackie for some info.

To answer your question, if you look hard enough, maybe do a WHOIS search for www.theflabar.org or www.jackandgoliath.com, or check the profiles of any or all of his 50+ LiveJournal accounts, you'll find an e-mail address he uses. However, that one probably gets spammed a lot. Maybe if you check his Florida Bar membership page, which is one of the external links in the article, you may find an address where he's more likely to actually read messages. That being said, I agree with everyone else here that any attempts at communication will probably be for nothing, especially if you expect an intelligible or thoughtful response that doesn't involve an insult. --Maxamegalon2000 01:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't reccommend it. You'll get nowhere. I tried to have a sensible dialogue with him and was e-mailed off topic press releases, patronising statements and defenses of his sanity (something that came out of nowhere), but no response to any of my points. He said 'i have better things to do than bother with gamers’ ideas, which is the latest oxymoron.' which shows that he thinks gamers cannot formulate opinions worth thinking about. I got off lucky though, as other people that have contacted him by e-mail have reportedly received numerous phone calls at early hours in the morning or threats of litigation. You won't get anything good out of it.--Ryan Acheson 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)