Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 7

message: The talk page was getting long, so I archived it. Jabrwock 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived talk pages 

message: Since we've agreed that this article is in need of a re-write due to an impression of bias, let's compile a list of sections that need re-writes, so they can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
First Paragraph Jack Thompson
Other than his birthdate, which according to Thompson is incorrect, are there any objections to the way the first paragraph is written? Short of mentioning that he has been married for 30 years and has a son, and of course the correct birthdate, I don't see anything that needs to be changed here. Should we take out the b-day until we can confirm the true date? 
:Taking out his birthdate may not be a bad idea. Otherwise it seems fine. Mred64 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Done, removed until we can confirm it. Jabrwock 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I can confirm that Thompson's birthday is July 25, 1951 and that his wife is July 26, 1951. My workplace has a PublicData.com account. Pretty useful website as you can find anyone's address, driver's license #, license plate, criminal record, etc. And yes, it's perfectly legal as this can all be atainable through public records (hence the name of the website, PublicData.com).KungFu-tse 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias: Intro 

message: Jack_Thompson#Man_in_Miami
Can we find any other articles he wrote as "Man in Miami"? Did he only criticise Reno or did he write about other political figures? Did he ever write an article about the closet lesbian accusation, or was that just an incident at a fundraiser? Why doesn't he write for NewsMax anymore? Jabrwock 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I thought he was hired by NewsMax following his defeat. It seems odd that he'd attack Reno 12 years after being defeated, and after she refused to hire him. What a lengthy grudge! I guess it's a good thing that the NewsMax things is seperated out then. I'll put the date he began writing for them... Jabrwock 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Section is worded rather poorly as well.  First reference to Janet Reno in the article and she's just called "Reno".  Anyone not familiar with the subject likely would have no idea what this refers to.--Isotope23 20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias: Man in Miami 

message: Jack_Thompson#Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit
Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit
I don't think that second paragraph needs to be there. That's more under his "activism" section. 
The linked article could probably use a style edit, but I don't think it needs much more than that. Jabrwock 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias: Paducah lawsuit 

message: Jack_Thompson#Strickland_vs._Sony
Any comments? I can see a few bits that need cleaning up, such as his email reference being messed up. And while the vaginal tube thing is funny, I don't think it's relevant to the case. Maybe move it down to "other"? Jabrwock 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just deleting that sentence. It only has value as a trivia factoid. Mred64 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually move the vaginal tube reference (it has some value) down to the Threats subsection. --Mazinger-Z 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if the link in that sentence is a source for anything else, so here it is: Thompson bails GTA case. Mred64 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently this lawsuit was the reason he was interviewed on 60 Minutes. Not as an "expert", but as the plaintiffs' lawyer.  Jabrwock 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Ok, I put in the mention about him being featured on 60 Minutes (it's his favourite thing to remind people of, but whatever, it's in), and I did some copy-editing. Thoughts? Jabrwock 20:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias: Strickland vs Sony 

message: We've got an section related to his GamePolitics/LJ history.  It'd be a fairly interesting thing to put in FReeper history (which is prevalent during the Elian saga in Florida).
http://web.archive.org/web/20010416002606/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39719ca95afa.htm
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/14/spankings-for-anti-game-crusader-jack-thompson/#c214092
--Mazinger-Z 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FReeper History 

message: I finally found an article that credits Thompson with the complaint that resulted in Stern's parent company (Clear Channel) being fined $495,000. Although Thompson can't claim credit for getting him "kicked off the air" because Howard Stern simply moved off Clear Channel networks and onto Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom) ones. A few months later he was back in the same markets, but broadcasting through Infinity. Infinity dropped him in Nov 2005 because he was advertising on air his move to satellite. That and before the complaint was filed, Stern had already signed his deal with Sirius, so he was moving off Clear Channel anyway.  
We could credit him with the fine, since it was his complaint that got the ball rolling. But not with getting him off the terrestrial airwaves, because that was going to happen anyway. Jabrwock 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson vs. Howard Stern 

message: This one is tricky. There is a policy against referring to Wikipedia WP:SELF, but Thompson did vandalise his own page. (Note I'm using wiki's definition of vandalism, namely that it's considered vandalism to edit one's own page, as well as inserting a page worth of unformatted, opinionated content...) Plus he did post on another site that the wiki was full of lies and he "corrected it" (even though he didn't, actually)
Is there any way we can mention that he did this without violating WP:SELF? Jabrwock 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think speaking about this in a normal way, as if Wikipedia was a completely different site, would violate SELF at all. Definitely less than Wikipedia does. Atropos 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mentioning his actions regarding the article is within the article fits the context of the article, and speaks quite loudly about his character.--Vercalos 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I would re-write it though, so it doesn't say stuff like "edited this article", etc. Write it as if the section were about him editing and insulting a seperate website.  Jabrwock 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, does anyone have a link to JT's edit? I'm rather curious as to what he posted.--Vercalos 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let me know if you find it. It is needed for citation.Yeago 06:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack vs. Wikipedia 

message: I moved Strickland vs. Sony and "A Modest Proposal" to their own sub-articles. Eventually we'll probably need a TOC in each sub-article, so you can jump from sub-article to sub-article directly rather than having to go back up. Jabrwock 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Moved all specific video game activism to it's own sub-article. Jabrwock 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the video game lobbying go in the Video Game Activism sub-article? Mred64 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The subarticles are now in conflict with WP:NAME though ("Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles") - the slash convention is used in  talk/user/project, but not in main article space. Someone ought to figure out better names for these, and not everything needs to be even hierarchic anyway (For example, just "A Modest Video Game Proposal" instead of "Jack Thompson/A Modest Video Game Proposal".) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just moved all the articles like that to pages with new names and updated the links in the article to reflect that. Since there really is no such thing as a hierarchy of articles, maybe we should just say "See main article X" instead of "See sub-article X"? Mred64 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-articles 

message: In 2002 
"Norwalk-like flu virus" besieging primarily the Disney Cruise Line may be the work of al-Qaeda affiliated bioterrorists.
The prophet Muhammad was a pirate.
Jabrwock 17:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson aka BioTerror expert? 

message: In the threats section it says that gamepolitics changed it's posting policy due to that law and his comments on the suicide of the gamer, it was found early on that it only really applied to e-mails, and Thompson was the only one who seemed to take it seriously. I think we should take this out as it seemed that the suicide comments were what really drove Dennis to change the policy but don't want to start an edit war.
Thoughts, anyone?
Pixelanteninja 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately banning him doesn't remove all his spam, which Dennis has to clean up message by message... Jabrwock 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threats 

message: What about Jack Thompson and Video Gamers or Response to Jack Thompson for another sub-article? I'm thinking it should include the Livejournal/GamePolitics, Correspondence, Response, Threats, and Metalgearsolid.org sections. It would really help to shorten this article.  Mred64 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but watch out for User:Monicasdude, he'll probably label that sub-article for deletion due to it being "fancruft". I just cleaned up the deletion request from all the sub-articles. Jabrwock 06:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up, and the main article links to it under a new sub-section in the Activism section called "Communications with GAmers." Mred64 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson and Gamers 

message: He just posted a letter to the "secret service" on gamepolitics.com [] in response to some flash game mocking the cheney hunting incident because you shoot at the image of George W. Bush (attached to a sheeps head, with laser eyes!) among others. Not sure if it's worthy stuff, or just his usual antics.SanderJK 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a sentence or two. Right now I wouldn't do anything with it, since we don't know if he actually did reach the Secret Service and we're reworking the article. Mred64 03:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Already did that. Been busy today, sadly IanC 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to the "secret service" 

message: ohn B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
February 22, 2006
Robert D. Segall
President, Alabama State Bar
Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, PA
Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Via Fax to 334-834-3172
Re: Jack Thompson v. Alabama State Bar
Dear Mr. Segall:
I wrote you sixteen days ago and asked you to call me back regarding the mishandling of a State Bar complaint against me which in fact was not even filed and yet with your Bar is “investigating” it in violation of its own Bar Rules.
Because you did not extend to me the courtesy of any kind of response, I have had to sue the Alabama State Bar today. I have also moved the court for mediation of the matter, in a spirit of professional cooperation which has been utterly lacking on the part of the State Bar.
It appears that the Alabama State Bar has an attitude that it need not descend from Olympus to talk with a lawyer from a border state. That’s fine. I like the people of the Alabama, and I look forward to spending more time there. I shall be addressing the Eagle Forum in Birmingham on March 31, and I’ll explain, from my perspective how the Alabama State Bar misunderstands its statutory function.
Your own Bar ballyhoos at its Internet site the benefits of conflict resolution short of litigation. I happen to agree with that approach. It’s unfortunate that you and the rest of the Bar machinery have made this litigation necessary by your refusal to communicate to try to resolve this matter amicably.
Sincerely, Jack Thompson
Copy: Judge James W. Moore, Fayette County
Judicial Inquiry Commission
Media
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/213925.html?thread=15262117#t15262117
:He sued them because they didn't respond to his letter?--Vercalos 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His original letter said that he would sue if they didn't drop the "investigation" he claims they're running. But under their rules, they can't tell anyone if they are investigating... The only reason we think he's under investigation is because he lost his Pro Hac Vice status, and was referred to the bar by a judge... I'm not sure if that results in an automatic investigation or not... Jabrwock 22:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would the Southern District of Florida have any jurisdiction over the Alabama bar, anyway? *Dan T.* 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Maybe he has to file there first before they move it up to a court that has jurisdiction? Or maybe he's just an idiot... Jabrwock 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to Alabama Bar 

message: I just reverted the latest changes made by an admin (forgot who he was) who said that he was putting the "sensible version".  An encyclopedia is not about sensibility, it's about the facts.  This is who the man is and as such it should stand! 66.231.253.100
:I feel that this is borderline editorial abuse. While the user who committed this blanking is an admin, they have no place in unilaterally removing very large portions of an article without any sort of consensus, ESPECIALLY for a controversial topic. I feel the article in its pre-vandalized state ought to stand. Nortelrye 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The administrator who did the blanking goes by the username Brookie. I've left a note on their user page asking them to leave off with the massive article changes without any sort of consensus. Nortelrye 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I *tried* to ask nicely, at least. This user does not appear to be interested in addressing this issue on their talk page, however; as they appear to have nuked  my polite request . Nortelrye 16:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This deleting of comments from his talk page -- the "La La La I Can't Hear You!" approach that is a favorite of some of the more annoying users on Wikipedia -- is a disturbing thing to see an admin doing. *Dan T.* 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As you well know anyone is free to edit as they feel fit - which I will continue to do. By the way, I do not see any edits as claimed by Nortelrye on the history of the page - what can this mean? Do we have sockpuppets peddling a view here? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper?) 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice try playing the sockpuppet card, but no, I'm not one. Unless you'd care to prove it, let it go. I'm a GP user who wanted to speak out about what appears to be somebody abusing their position as a wikipedia administrator. You're not "pruning" the article, you're vandalizing it, and I too will be reporting it as such.Nortelrye 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thing is Bookie - We cant see what your trying to do. Everything on here is accurate to my knowledge, yet you continue to blank it out. Why? IanC 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Brookie refers to "adverts" and "self promotion" and "vanity photos". Maybe he believes Jack himself put up all this stuff... I can't think of any other reason for deleting nearly the whole page. --Fedùle 15:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely like to hear Brookie's explanation for "pruning" the article, especially since removing 332 of the 341 lines from the pre-vandalized article (determined by copying and pasting the two versions into a text editor and looking at the line count) can hardly be considered "pruning", or even responsible editing for that matter. A wikipedia admin ought to know better than to unilaterally delete 97% of a controversial article.  Nortelrye 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest changes by admin  

message: Well, judging by the remarks left at Brookie's talk page ("I'm bored of this. A tedious article - good bye!"), it seems clear that this administrator is not interested in discussing or developing a consensus regarding their actions. I cannot judge whether this is an act of bad faith or not, or whether or not they're violating the "try to preserve information" portion of WP:Editing Policy (I don't believe that an article being "tedious" is a valid criteria for deleting verifiable information), but at the very least they're guilty of poor etiquette and are definitely committing a faux pas by ignoring and deleting concerns posted on their talk page. 
As attempts at discussion have failed due to this user refusing to respond to or acknowledge our concerns, and at times outright hiding them from public view ; I believe the best solution (at least as a first step) is to seek informal mediation under WP:Resolving Disputes. I would not propose this if a regular Wikipedian had blanked the article, but I am concerned about future vandalism of this article by this user, as well as the potential for abuse of administrative power - it's hard to assume good faith when the admin in question pretends your concerns don't exist. What do other people here think about this course of action? Is this going too far? All I'd really like to gain from this is an assurance that this admin will not in the future decide to "prune" 90+ percent of this article and then pretend that it's not a problem. Everybody's thoughts would be appreciated. Nortelrye 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Resolving Disputes seems fair and appropriate to me. Also, I thought it was against the rules to remove discussions from talk pages. --Maxamegalon2000 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? I may be in trouble then. :P I thought it only applied to things like warnings, and ban notices. Jabrwock 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, almost. "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. ... If someone removes your comments without answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings." --Maxamegalon2000 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be very clear, I am referring to Brookie's removal of concerns posted to THEIR OWN user:talk page. It does not seem to be a violation of WP policy (however, doing so on an article's talk page may very well be), but it is considered bad etiquette to do such a thing. Nortelrye 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Anyone can edit, which is Wiki policy, but when an admin repeatedly blanks a page, that is an abuse of position, because who do you get to temp ban the admin for vandalism? It should definitely be reported. Jabrwock 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well... At least he'll leave it alone now, right? It did seem a bit immature to me. IanC 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want them to leave the article alone - I'd love if Brookie would make positive contributions to it. The problem is dealing with an admin engaging in what would most likely be considered an act of vandalism if it were performed by any other wikipedian - and it may still be dealt with as an act of vandalism, that remains to be seen. The point is that their administrative status makes it difficult to deal with, especially because administrators ought to know better than to do such things. Brookie is only compounding this problem be refusing to address it. If they'd like to make positive contributions, that's fine. But if they don't intend to do so, I would definitely like some kind of assurance that they'll simply leave the article alone and not use their administrative status as a means of circumventing wikipedia policy. Nortelrye 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on Informal Mediation?

message: After i cleaned up the new picture of JT of jpeg artifacts i got asked where the original image came from, i didnt know before but i now tracked it to this source: 
 
http://www.gamepro.com/lofi/article.cfm?article_id=49525 
Jernejl 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the New picture

message: I recently edited the 'Miscellaneous cases'  portion of the article, in part to remove what appeared to be POV conjecture, and afterwards cleaned up the wording a bit. I noticed that the news story that was cited as a source  no longer appears on the website ("The requested article was not found."). I could not find another source to substitute. Should this section and the reference to the supporting news article be removed entirely? What does everybody else think? Nortelrye 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a new source. Apparently he managed to convince the mother that games were to blame, but she later decided that they weren't, so she turned him down. Jabrwock 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing content when there is no longer a source to cite?

message: This is cute. First Jack posts Dennis' unlisted, private phone number, claiming it's an office # so all's fair. Then he bitches at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and claims that Dennis' is misrepresenting himself as their employee. Apparently he did this once before, and the PP didn't do anything. Here's Dennis' explanation:  Then Thompson claims someone from the Pioneer Press called him to "thank" him for "exposing" Dennis. Jabrwock 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, "verbal diarreha of the keyboard" is not only non-sensical, it's blatantly POV and does not belong on wikipedia. Nortelrye 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The guy went on a crazy posting spree in the Game Politics comments section like mad. Clearly he is in some sort of stage of insanity, even moreso than usual. MarphyBlack 00:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked Thesaurus.com and I got the following synonyms for verbal diarrhea(which I was surprised to even find on Thesaurus.com to tell the truth):  blarney, cacoethes loquendi, diarrhea of the mouth, flowing tongue, furor loquendi, gift of the gab, logomania, logorrhea, volubility, and gift of gab.--Vercalos 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something like: "is a prolific writer of letters, e-mails, and press-releases in support of his cause"? Nortelrye 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or "expresses great volubility when discussing his political stance."--Vercalos 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like yours better. Nortelrye 03:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack vs. Dennis McCauley 

message: Looks like User:Monicasdude is on a quest to remove all "non-notable" articles, so he spams {Prod} tags all over the place. Every sub-article has been tagged. I commented on the articles for deletion page. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_24#Strickland_vs._Sony Jabrwock 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that as a comment on the deletion page. I've been told that we should "summarize" his actions, and limit them to "notable" cases and actions, but we need somewhere to gather all the data together, almost like a sub-page for "research material & references". Otherwise we're left trying to summarize cases from 170+ links. Jabrwock 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Commented. Hope i did it right. IanC 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion, again? 

message: Sometime soon I'm going to make a "Talk" subpage called "Research". Basically it will be a whiteboard so we can gather all the material into one long page, and organize it. This way we can keep track of various stories, and then we can pick out the important bits to summarize on the main wiki entry. This will allow us to condense the article, while still retaining the in-depth info for reference, instead of having to scour the web for the various links. This should deal with the "delete this fancruft" crowd, as it will make the article short & sweet, and we get to keep our indepth material intact so we have background info to work with. Jabrwock 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Page 

message: Seems like a vanity article to me. Isn't this article a bit long for a not particularly notable lawyer?
: To many people, Jack Thompson is complete unknown, but to the video gaming community, he's a demonic figure loathed by all. This information is quite relevant, interesting and useful to a suprisingly large number of people. Markusdragon 13:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a vanity article, it's a collection of data gathered by many users.  Actually, Jack Thompson tried to edit his article, citing "lies about him" and he was barred from doing so.  This is who the man is and is backed up by fact.  As such it should stand.  Besides, if you actually read the article you'll find it less than flattering.
As an activist lawyer, he's definitely notable. --Bakkster Man 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It could probably use a little trimming down, though not the sledgehammer approach somebody tried a little while back. *Dan T.* 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, both those articles are shorter then Jack Thompson's article, particularly when you consider the sub-articles.--Vercalos 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity 

message: First time past the article in a few days, is the comment in the introduction about his son playing games rated E really necessary/POV? I couldn't imagine an encyclopedia saying that...Melander 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thompson did say that he only lets his son play E-rated games in an interview (was it EGM?). Anyways, I see your point. It seems like the kind of trivia info that you would put on Thompson's personal bio rather than an encyclopedia.KungFu-tse 15:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack's Son 

message: From http://www.starttruth.com/articles/thompson/bono.php
(removed - it can be read on the above provided link, no need for copying it down here)
I wonder who he'll write next? Bush?? Maluka 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  I rather wonder why he's still blaming the Robida murders on video games, despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that the police did not find any video games.--Vercalos 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Sony and Take-Two designed the GTA: Vice City game to utilize the PS2's Dual Shock controller, which sends a visceral jolt back into the hands of the player each time he kills. Thus, the entire system is a biofeedback, operant conditioning system which desensitizes the user to the act of killing."
My god! I must have been secretly trained for years by the Nintendo 64 with its evil Rumble Paks to become a mass murderer! I felt the thrill of the kill from blasting the leader in Diddy Kong Racing, and I felt the visceral jolt of joy of collecting honey combs in Banjo-Kazooie! Curse you rumbling controllers! Curse you Nintendo and everything you stand for! - MarphyBlack 13:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack's letter to Bono 

message: This article, without even counting the sub-pages, is significantly longer than Wikipedia's biographies of George Washington and Napoleon I of France, and practically the same length as those of Joseph Stalin and George W. Bush, just to pick some reasonably notable people more-or-less at random.  Jack Thompson, by contrast, even if he is widely quoted, seems to be a relatively peripheral cultural figure.  Why is this guy so important that we need a book-length narrative about him?  --Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the articles you listed ought to be longer. Also, George W. Bush does contain 18 "see also"s. I don't know; people contribute about what they know, and sometimes it's hard to determine with people who are currently in the news just which items will end up as the more important ones in history. Also, I'm not sure that importance and article length necessarily ought to be correlated. --Maxamegalon2000 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The main reason is that there is a lot out there on Jack Thompson.Reub2000 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. While there is a lot of information about JT, it's not all relevent, and not all of it needs to be in the encyclopedia. I suggest we try to decide what people will really want/need to know about Jack in 5/10/15 years. Obviously his political history, but not every single thing he's said publicly (he's said a LOT publicly). I know the page is being reduced and rewritten, hopefully the less notable information will be left out. --Bakkster Man 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but even if we want only what people will want to know in 5/10/15 years, we still have to cater for the things that people want to know NOW. Thompson is still attempting to influence people, and as long as he continues to spew fiction, it is essential that the facts remain accessible and readily available, especially when Thompson relies on them not being known in order to push his agenda. --Fedùle 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we still have to remember that this is an encyclopedia article. We can't make decisions for people, and that includes what we add. We should not add a section because Jack pissed us off by saying something, we should add sections because what he said was notable in some way. Of course we should still mention Jack's attacks on games, but maybe we don't need to describe every press release he's ever made. i.e. broad descriptions of his views and actions, less descriptions of individual events. --Bakkster Man 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but as an encyclopedia article an outside look needs to be taken. As much as I feel should be said about JT, Wikipedia is NOT the place to go on and on about him. Right now, I'd call most of the article Fancruft. Mostly, I feel that 22 seperate events is too much to talk about. Picking out the most notable and briefly mentioning the rest would be a big help to this article, and external linking would allow information seekers to find out more if they so choose. --Bakkster Man 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it 

message: I have removed the panda magazine section, as all it amounts to is basically someone talking shit about someone else. Nothing notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panda magazine 

message: Was there not an incedent related to his proposal that someone made a video game that kills video game developers? If i remember correctly, penny arcade donated 10,000 dollars in his name to a charity after Jack Thompson refused to pay? Im still  looking for more information, but i remember hearing about this on Gamespot presents the hotspot. Can someone please help find anything about this incident and maybe propose it should be included into the article. Tommygun141 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to A Modest Video Game Proposal, which both has its own article and is mentioned in this one as well. --Maxamegalon2000 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penny Arcade? 

message: There are two things I find kind of disturbing here. One is the building of accusations upon assumptions. Some people seem to assume that the Foundation received this letter and immediately protected the article. That is false. There were several steps in between these two processes, as the comment by BradPatrick above would indicate. The second is that the Foundation, which would be the defendant if Mr Thompson chose to sue us (and he has not), would then be obliged to post all of its legal strategies on this page for discussion and debate by various Wikipedians. The Foundation does not know all of the people who commented here. Do you really think it is wise to discuss all the details of what is happening in such an open forum? That is the second thing I find disturbing. Assume some good faith, particularly in the people such as Jimbo who make this website possible. 
Having said all that, I would invite Wikipedians to begin to reconstruct the article by offering suggestions as to how a more fuller survey of Jack Thompson's life and career can be covered in a neutral and fully sourced way. Thompson contended that even his date of birth was wrong. Then let's rebuild the article so that every single fact is correct and sourced. As David Gerard said above, there is no reason why this should not be a candidate for featured article. Danny 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we allowed to begin reconstructing it on a temp page? Also, I don't think anyone here suggested you post legal strategies here, but a notice other than the OFFICE template would have been nice. That's been the bulk of my complaint. --Golbez 00:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I find that a perfectly fair statement. I think the post of xSTRIKEx6864 was what started, in part, the assumptions in this page, since the post implied automatic failure on the part of those who edited and maintained the page. As I said earlier, there was a high degree of 'accusatory' type wording in the original article, along the lines of 'He said, but we say'. Whilst I don't think it is wrong to add points of importance to various comments/posts made by Mr Thomspon, I do understand the need for it not to simply be a 'Jack Thompson is wrong' article. I apologise if I came across as accusatory, I have great respect for the Wiki and what it's trying to achieve, hopefully, with some work, we can provide a more thorough, definitive, and possibly shorter article about this man. Flipside72 23:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would second Danny's sentiments above. The Foundation already have to deal with enough difficulty in managing the project's executive level aspects and dealing with matters such as legal issues without the added onerous task of having to elaborate their internal affairs to those who don't necessarily either have a role to play in the dispute nor have any constructive input on how to resolve the scenario. It is one thing to complain about the state of affairs, but it is quite another to do something about it and actually rebuild the article - as Danny suggests - as opposed to simply arguing politics. It is this latter which we should be doing, as opposed to the former; we should leave the Foundation to get on with their job, without unfair judgement or onus, and we the editing community should likewise get on with our job and write a properly encyclopaedic article that nobody, not even Thompson, could find sufficient fault with. I propose that we perhaps start afresh at Jack Thompson/Rewrite. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some responses

message: This incident, and the reaction by the WP:OFFICE staff really made me pause and give newfound credence to the Five Wikipedia Predictions by Jason Scott (see prediction #4).  The board really needs to come up with some proactive solutions to these problems now before they wind up alienating the entire editing community.  Silensor 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proactive solutions we as an entire community have been coming up with involve tightening up on verification and care to articles on living people (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:LIVING, and also :Category:Living people, all toward that end). It just happens that some things slip through the cracks. We have 1 million articles. It's *hard* to check all of them. And all of these measures are designed to help keep these articles open so that they spend as little time actually protected as possible. If you think there is not currently a push to solve these kinds of problems before they are problems, you are mistaken. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might have missed what I was driving at.  Yes, we now have over one million articles, but this one was hardly low profile.  It has thousands of edits and was on a number of administrator's watchlists, are you implying that this is one that slipped through the cracks?  Silensor 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That statement is completely wrong about how the burden of proof works in a libel case. --Michael Snow 01:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're correct that in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the statements were not true. However, your analysis of the "case" is limited, and the question of whether he could win at trial is not the only issue. Please remember that this is temporary, and trust that the foundation office is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rhobite 02:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's what you both have wrong. Arguing that the statement is true is a defense against a claim of libel, and the burden of proving such a defense is, not surprisingly, on the defendant. --Michael Snow 06:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of the UK, whose libel laws are notoriously plaintiff-friendly. I am positive that in the U.S. the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the statements were false. If this is wrong you should update Slander and libel quickly. Truth is an affirmative defense, of course, so many defendants will argue it, but that doesn't mean the burden of proof is on the defendant. If the plaintiff doesn't prove falsehood (and the other elements of libel), then in theory the defendant doesn't need to present any defense. Rhobite 16:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, hasty and imprecise responses on my part. Libel isn't really even the term in use for much of modern U.S. law, defamation would be more apropos. Whatever its name, if the tort involves as an element of the claim that a statement be both defamatory and false, then yes, the burden of proving those elements is on the plaintiff. It would depend on what elements the particular jurisdiction requires in order to make a prima facie case. --Michael Snow 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship by way of litigation threats

message: Would anyone object to adding his birthdate or would that be too controversial an addition? I mean we're here to provide information, not protect ourselves from lawsuits. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an authoritative source for that information?  He claims the date that was formerly up there is incorrect. *Dan T.* 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you're right. Google turns up no hits for his birthdate other than Wikipedia... Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my comment on Bias: Intro. The original date was incorrect, removed after Thompson complained about it, and then I added the correct one.KungFu-tse 02:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you then include the date with a reference? Since the page is frozen, it can be done in a rewrite page as suggested above. Danny 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of tricky. A lot of the public record services that you find on the net (like PublicData.com) are subscriber services. Also, PublicData limits the number of searches you do per month. So a direct link to the record is not possible. The only other way to verify it is to ask Mr. Thompson himself, which he declined to fix himself.KungFu-tse 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he will not tell us the correct birthdate then we have no proof it is false. Slap up Jan 1 1877 for all I care. He can only prove it's wrong if he, well, proves it's wrong. --Golbez 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe someone watching this page had a website he was able to cite. Maybe he can put that date back up. --Bakkster Man 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth?

message: The problem with blanking pages when people threaten to sue Wikipedia over its content is:
# More people unhappy with Wikipedia information will threaten to sue Wikipedia.
# You create a precedent of showing that Wikipedia does have full control over the information written by its users, and as such you take liability for it.
This is an awful idea.  The article should be restored immediately.  -Quasipalm 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above discussion to see why this is not feasible. If you would like to see the article restored, please help write the new version. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. Unless I missed something, what I see is Wikipedia backing down to threats from Jack. The issues of bias are extremely difficult to assess and control seeing as how Jack Thompson himself openly attacks a very large group of people. In order to vie for accuracy, all that dirt has to be laid out. Now if someone wants to actually write something not so dirty while remaining true, then so be it. Don't ask me to write something unbiased. Everything I know about that man goes against every grain of my being. Which is why I intentionally kept my hands off of this page (until now). I 
have nothing good to say about this man and I have never seen this man say anything good about the gaming industry. SavannahLion 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want Wikimedia to challenge JT, do you have the funds to pay for their legal costs? - Hbdragon88 07:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People will donate for such cause. SYSS Mouse 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait so your alter ego is a 15 year old boy? Jack Thompson threatens people with lawsuits almost every week, and he never follows through with these threats.Sonic Hog
**Yeah, I'd rather not get into the details of that right now.  I know it's most likely that he's full of hot air, but as said before, I'd rather not take the chance.  Wikipedia, and its mission, is very important to me. Danny Lilithborne 09:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to add that I'm inclined to agree with the guy who pretends to be a 15-year-old boy on the Internet. - 211.28.80.58 12:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if it does snowball and we have to remove all controversial materials, we can still have things solidly based on facts, such as the origins of a Yorkshire Terrier or the history of George Washington.  So closing down Wikipedia because the controversial articles have been removed is a dramatic overkill, considering many articles simply lack controversy.--Vercalos 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really true.  As shown here, facts are debatable.  This section is being shut down because very little positive information is available about a person (or is contested).  There is no NPOH (Neutral Point of History), and to deny that things have happened is both an injustice to people affected by those events and the downfall of any encyclopedic work that has no dissenting account of history.  To take down something so minor as this is merely the first step to dismantling the entire record; there are much much more devastatingly biased pieced and there simply is no better way to present them.
The reason very little posisitive is avalible about Jack is cause he's done nearly nothing posistive in years. He's a censor, a man who wants to take away rights from others. I hardly think thats a posistive stance to take in a country that prides itself on the ideals of freedom. Jack May not like what his article said, but only because it showed him to be the hatemongering, communist style lunatic he was. If he wasn't acting that way, then why were there over 140 cited sources showing those exact actions, showing rampant hypocracy, showing lies and deciet and a near endless cavalcade of Bullshit. Sorry, but the fact is, jack didn't like the article cause it showed him to be what he really is, a facist style self serving parastie. If he didn't behave like one, we wouldn't have all the evidance we do on him. (YukimuraSanada 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting a bad precedent

message: I was going to come and ask the current article maintainers what JT was up to since his banning at GamePolitics (which kind of killed the party over there), but it looks like you guys have got that covered - and then some. Jack Thompson x Wikidrama = comedy gold/worrying reminder that the internet is serious business.
PS for Maluka: A/S/L? 24.20.237.11 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know.... 

message: Why does the article need to be blanked and protected because of a legal threat? Why not just identify what in the article is problematic and then we can concentrate our efforts on that? There may be a good reason for doing it this way, I just don't know what it is. Everyking 12:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently its standard practice and has happened many times but I haven't tracked another instance. Yeago 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A wide variety of cases where somebody has objected in some manner to content about them on Wikipedia can be found here. *Dan T.* 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What a fucking disgrace. Coffee 19:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't get it

message: :That's now a redirect to this article.  Creating new articles with minor variants on the title of old ones just to get around protection, edit-warring, or other problems is not a move that gets much sympathy on Wikipedia, even from people who may agree with you on the undesirability of the situation in the main article. *Dan T.* 20:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jack Thompson (lawyer)]]

message: Geez, I come back here after finally replacing a fried motherboard, and this is what I see... After taking a look at all the comments, I've concluded that this situation really isn't as bad as some people posting here seem to think it is. Wikipedia has not nuked the article, they've not banned anybody contributing to it, they're not horribly censoring *anything*. Regardless of the individual making the threats (and his obvious lack of sanity), legal threats were still made, and they have to be dealt with as such. Wikipedia, in what clearly appears to be a gesture of good faith, has removed the disputed content until they figure out how they wish to proceed in this matter. The data isn't gone forever (yet), and as far as I know, no names or IP addresses have been given up to JT. Wikipedia is simply exercising caution in dealing with a potential lawsuit, and I would be disappointed in them if they didn't do such things. I've not seen them capitulate in the face of legal threats  from other net-kooks, and I don't expect that they will do so in this situation. If JT actually does sue them in this case, I will definitely be chipping into a legal fund, and I hope to see the same from other GP readers.
However, I believe that like all of Thompson's other legal threats, this one will go nowhere, and I look forward to seeing the content restored; because while it may be in dire need of POV and bias adjustments, it's still the truth about his actions. In the meantime, hurling insults at Wikipedia and personal attacks at some of its members (no matter how creepy some might find their profiles) and trying to sneak around the lock on this page is NOT GOING TO HELP. If you really care about Wikipedia and its mission, you'll let them handle it according to their policies. But please, please stop trying to undermine what they're doing by creating pages like 'Jack Thompson (lawyer)' to get around the lock. Nortelrye 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Is Seriously Not As Bad As People Think It Is

message: Apparantly Jack has returned to posting on Game Politics and this is what he has to say on what happened to his Wikipedia article:
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/227903.html?thread=16493631#t16493631
Specifically, this quote:
:"Wikipedia's pulling of the entries pertaining to Jack Thompson by gamers, pending review of their falsity."
What? Is this for real? Jack Thompson is acting like this is a legal victory for him, and quite honestly, it's looking like it may truly be one for him unless the article is reinstated. What "falsity" was there ever? The only real disputed fact that ever occured was his birth date; something Jack himself wouldn't reveal or correct. By removing the article, Wikipedia is basically supporting Jack's claim that the article was pulled because it was false since it was Jack that made the original legal complaint over it.
I understand the moderators of Wikipedia are acting in good faith in light of Jack Thompson's request, but what I don't think they realize is that it is unlikely he will ever be satisfied with an article about him. As pointed out before, almost everything in the article was based entirely on fact. These were his actions and his words. The most anybody could really complain about was some (I stress some) lack of citation and a few somewhat POV-ish statements here and there. However, it's ridiculously absurd to think that the article was entirely false or libelous in any way that would constitute an entire removal.
I agree that this situation is somewhat overblown, but now we have Jack Thompson absolutely gloating his supposed victory over gamers and Wikipedia. This is not the kind of person whose wishes should be respected since he clearly only wanted the article removed with the intent of being able to mock his detractors over it. He doesn't care one bit about validity or a neutral point of view or necessary citations. He's just a guy acting with malicious intent. - MarphyBlack 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Jack Thompson is saying about this

message: Can someone clarify me on this, from my understanding if Wiki got an e-mail from some guy saying he's going to sue if they don't take down the article on evolution would they do it. I highly doubt it because said guy would have no legal backing whatsoever Jack Thompson MIGHT have some kind of legal backing and until the might becomes a definite "doesn't" the article will remain locked, however the good news is that Jack put on a 30 day timer so if Jack doesn't try to cooperate with wiki within 30 days they can probably return the article in it's glouroius original form (and of course add another new section on this fiasco). So be patient I am confident wiki knows what it's doing.Father Time89
:Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Remember, unless you can prove the Wikimedia Foundation is attempting to harm the stability of Wikiedia, please assume they are working in what they believe to be its best interest. Even though we have witnessed empty threats from JT in the past, we can't assume they all are (he has to follow through sometime). We can also assume that the Foundation saw enough reasonable evidence that JT could have pursued legal action (and with recent events, that's the last thing the Foundation needs). Give them some time, please. --Bakkster Man 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This man is a piece of shit.  If Wikipedia bows down to his stupidity we all lose. Klosterdev 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki won't be bullyied by everyone who files suit

message: Would anyone object to :Category:Lawyers? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see why not. He *is* a licensed lawyer in Florida. Jabrwock 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now.  There have been an almost unheard of number of complaints about him to the Florida Bar Association.  KiTA 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them from angry gamers, not legal professionals. Rhobite 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And a rather important Judge, who also revoked his status to be try law in another state, Please don't try revoke people smartly Rhobite unless you have done super investigate work first. 203.112.2.212 18:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed.  However, they are just as valid as any other complaint.  As a lawyer practicing in Florida State, Jack is held to a standard of professionalism, and if he is failing to reach that, and the FBA is informed of such, it is up to them to decide what to do with him.  The persons bringing the complaint forward are ultimately illrelivant -- it's his actions, not the accusors identities, that are important here.  KiTA 17:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good category, and certainly relevent. Once User:Danny or another WP Office member gives the O.K. we should add it. --Bakkster Man 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Prior to the lockdown he was listed in :Category:American lawyers, :Category:Living people and :Category:People from Ohio all being verified true. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I propose we add a see also: to the temporary page.  Since the other articles related to Jack's actions are not under scrutiny, they can most likely be linked to. James v. Meow Media, Strickland v. Sony, Jack Thompson and video game players, A Modest Video Game Proposal, Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders, Flowers for Jack. I wouldn't reccomend adding the JT and gamers until this blows over, but what does everyone think? Danny, can we get authorization for this? --Bakkster Man 16:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the current version of the page, since it's just a temporary version until the WP:Office is removed. --Bakkster Man 19:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose: External linking 

message: What is actually being done here? What is the next stage in the process of getting this back to normal, or an editable state? Is there a next stage? If so, is anyone working on it? Everyking 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen before, the usual thing that happens is that the WP:OFFICE state simply goes away quietly, with as much explanation as when it was applied. If I understood WP:OFFICE and the IRC discussions correctly, it's just a way of avoiding friction with the Subject while the matter (whatever it is) is discussed with said Subject, and thus not entirely unlike the temporary protections we often use when dealing with some kinds of vandalism. --cesarb 11:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as we know, the Wikipedia Foundation's fact checkers are looking through the Jack Thompson article's claims, and verifying the sources as best as they can.  If I can snark a bit, it may be a few days before they stop laughing in order to finish restoring the article.  ;)  I believe we can help out the process by going to the article's last unlocked page, here , and helping bring forth any citations that you can find.  Any verifyable evidence of Mr. Thompson's antics would help -- including his previous uses of threats of lawsuits (akin to a SLAPP Suit), his obvious falsehoods and use of ad hominem attacks (including claiming the Sims 2 is a pedophile game with realistic naked children models, claiming that studies show that Gamers are violent by nature, calling gamers names when they converse with him over email, etc), and other such information.  I would also point out that the only falsehood Mr. Thompson could actually claim is that his date of birth was incorrect, and then a vauge "and it gets worse from there," which is typical of Mr. Thompson's discourse.  He has not actually refuted any of the claims of the article on him.  If Mr. Thompson has issues with a fact brought up in that article, he's more than welcome to discuss it in this talk page -- He has a Wikipedia account now, after all -- and we will show him the verifyable sources that we are using.  I welcome the chance to hear his side of the story. KiTA 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is being done?