Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 9

message: :So WP:OFFICE is the reason this one page is being held to a much higher standard than all the rest of the pages?  --Cyde Weys 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being held to a high standard (one a lot of other pages should aspire to, even if they're not there yet) in order to keep it from degenerating into the dross that prompted the office's intervention. So in a manner of speaking, yes. --Michael Snow 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So high standards lack decent formatting? The info may seem to be reputable and informative on a media basis, but the look of the article is monotone and boring to read and research into. Not all the problem is the formatting, the information itself lacks too, even with the 60 or so sources. All the Wiki Foundation and Jack did was make the article back to stage 1 before it became a horribly biased article, then evolved into a Jack-InfoStation *but still mildly biased* --Thndr 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I object to the exclusion of specialist online sources, but we'll have to see what exactly people want to add to discuss the merits thereof.--Eloquence* 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not excluded per se, there are already both specialist (local or industry-specific) and online sources being used. But in case of doubt, the burden is on whoever wants to include something to show that their source is reputable. In addition, it needs to add value to the article, and at this point a lot of the major events are pretty well covered by sticking to more mainstream sources. --Michael Snow 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I just tried to link Flowers for Jack in the main page, but it did not work, i get redirected to this page again. The link in the "see also" section works fine, i have no idea what is going on. Can anyone fix it? SanderJK 11:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still exists, but it's being redirected to here, where there is very little if any information on it.  Try this: Flowers for Jack --Keyne 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowers for Jack 

message: This section seems pretty poorly organized.  It has very little information on his actual campaign and seems to start off focusing on something somewhat unrelated.  If it (the radio station connection) is actually pertinent, can anyone dig up some more information so it doesn't look like it's just thrown in there 'for kicks'?  --Keyne 12:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The radio host, Rogers, is part of the reason he apparently ran against Reno. All of this early stuff does tie together, I believe, including his dealings with the Florida Bar. The lack of information is because that's all we have from the sources so far. The organization would come naturally enough if somebody can do the necessary research to fill it in. --Michael Snow 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we include that his grudge led to him criticizing her in his book, about when Reno interviewed him for a student job in the DA's office? (Reno was assistant at the time) It's detailed in the first chapter (.pdf) of his book.Jabrwock 18:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we say that he has a grudge? Does he say that a grudge is the reason he tells that story? By the way, it wasn't a student job he interviewed for. --Michael Snow 18:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I misread it. He said he had done the interview before he finished law school, I missed the bit about setting himself up with a job for after he got his bar license. Anyway, he goes into an awful lot of background detail speculating why Reno "hates" him for someone who doesn't have a grudge. I suppose that's original research to assume that, but I think we could at least mention that his first encounter with Reno was when she interviewed him for the prosecutors' job. He does mention in the book that he should have known better that it wouldn't be the last time he would have to spar with her. Jabrwock 19:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination is not to, simply because a colorful story told by a highly interested party (as opposed to an independent observer), about a person that party appears to have a grudge against, nearly 30 years after the fact, in the self-serving venue of an autobiography, should be viewed with extreme skepticism. The potential for embellishment, as to virtually every point of fact, is just too great. --Michael Snow 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose we were to simply include, "According to the first chapter in his autobiography, Thompson's first encounter with Janet Reno was..."  or some similar 1-2 sentance phrasing that fits in well. 216.89.171.253 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly then, we need to make that much more clear.  As it stands, it isn't obvious why we segue from one portion of that section to another other than a (very) short blurb about Reno dismissing possible litigation, then it goes into some pretty impressive detail on Thompson's 'grudge' against the Radio Station (rather than his grudge vs. Reno, which the section implies).  It's very disjoint.  --Keyne 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree I posted a link which should be in Archives 8, which was a good Newspaper Archive although you can't get full articles without paying you can get the Paper, Page Number , and Date from it which should make searching finding the full articles where they are available for free.--Tollwutig 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign against Janet Reno 

message: In his campaign, Thompson cast himself as a Batman-like character, a solitary figure helping law enforcement when it was unable to protect the public on its own. He portrayed 2 Live Crew frontman Luther Campbell not as Luke Skyywalker (his stage name), but as the Joker "peddling obscenity to children".[1]
Do we really need this? Just seems extraneous to me.  I know it shows how kooky Thompson can be, but still seems un-needed wordage.--Tollwutig 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Batman article by Chuck Philips is, in my judgment, far and away the most thorough profile anyone has found of Thompson as a person, as opposed to stories that simply report what he said or did. And the Batman theme is a key element of how Philips describes him, so yes, I think it's needed. It's a bit colorful, but it's not us creating the color, and it's way better than trying to pack in every remotely-kooky thing he may have said, an approach that would effectively mean the article is inappropriately seeking to prove a point (and also turns it into a bloated, unreadable mess). --Michael Snow 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first time, I agree with Michael.  It's a strange little section of this article but it's completely appropriate.  Thompson is, to put it kindly, a very colorful person.  An article describing him naturally reflects that.  --ElKevbo 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just me but the wordking just doesn't seem to fit into the paragraph it's in. When looking at the paragraph as a whole it just seems thrown in, as a side thought, and it breaks up the reading of the Rap Music segment.  It's like you're going through a series of events and then there's the batman thing thrown in the middle.--Tollwutig 19:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rap Music 

message: An update to his efforts to get school boards involved with a Bully boycott. I guess the Miami school board didn't quite agree with him afterall.
Secretive new video game might inspire school bullies - Miami Herald
Thompson asks school board to adopt a resolution urging Rockstar not to release Bully, asking local merchants not to sell it and asking parents not to buy it.
Video game targeted by Miami-Dade School Board - Miami Herald
School board waters down the resolution before adopting it, which now urged retailers not to sell Bully to minors and directed the district to inform parents "on the potential harmful effects to children of playing interactive video games containing violence."Jabrwock 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SanderJK  you'll have to make a strong case for using Gamesites.  As Snow has mentioned they usually have a Bias against Thompson.  Not saying your sources aren't good but they have to be bullet proof.  It would help if you can find other sources on his Bully boycott.  I know Miami Herald sorta covered it, but I also know last year Thompson organized a protest against it.  Try to research that sort of stuff more in mainstream media.  Pretty sure the protest involving school kids hit mainstream media somewhere.-Tollwutig 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a source right now, but it was Peaceaholics Thompson protested with, and it WAS covered by mainstream media. Don't know if his specific involvement was though. But in the Chatterbox interview he does detail the protest about a week or so before it happened, since he was a planner. Jabrwock 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bully school board resolution 

message: Can anyone find transcripts of his testimony before the Delaware Judicial Committee yesterday (wed, march 15)? He held up a video game and said This is not speech... WHYY (a Philadelphia NPR affiliate) was there with a camera, they might have gotten it. It would be handy, because I think he did a podcast interview on GamePolitics where he stated that games ARE speech... (trying to track that one down too) Jabrwock 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The podcast was from Chatterbox (.mp3) 16 minutes in, says he wants to restrict games in 1st amendment compatible means, implying that he consideres games as possibly protected speech, and so he needs to get around it. Jabrwock 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll check NPR tomorrow, see if they cover it nationally.  Which since Philly is a major contributor they may, but depends on if any major news stories break.  I wouldn't put it past for All Things Considered to cover it.  They sometimes cover video game stuff.--Tollwutig 22:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleware HB 360 testimonial 

message: Does anyone have any info on that $246 million lawsuit in Tenessee? According to the GTAIII wiki, it's been "pending" as of 2004. It's been two years, what was the name of the suit, and has it moved, defeated or been dropped?
Also, is it important to state how the cases turned out? Dustin Lynch pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. Medina Gazette (it's a google archive, there's problems with the medina-gazette page right now) Jabrwock 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think outcomes only warrant mentioning insofar as they involve Thompson. If Thompson filed the suit, then yes we want to know what happened in the end, and the Tennessee lawsuit is a gap in the coverage right now. But Devin Moore's conviction, for example, only gets mentioned because Thompson made an issue of it. Michael Carneal's guilty plea ends up on the cutting room floor. Those details belong in articles about that person, or about the incident generally. --Michael Snow 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. It's odd that I can't find ANYTHING about the Tennessee lawsuit other than the reported parts. Not it's official name, not where it was filed... Makes it much harder to track down. Jabrwock 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cocke County Circuit Court. The name of the case I don't know, but the victim's names were Bede and Hamel, which may help. --Michael Snow 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation 

message: August 2005 filed Thompson v. Best Buy - a Complaint for Injunctive Relief in Miami-Dade county court for the 11th circuit.
Anyone know what happened to this? It was a petition to have Bully declared a "public nuisance" so it couldn't be sold in the state. Jabrwock 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bully ban lawsuit 

message: I don't think we should provide a link to Thompson's Wikiquote until that section is cleaned up considerably.  While it retains some very juicy quotes, they are either not sourced anymore (Livejournal blocking Thompson's accounts) or generally very poorly sourced to begin with.  If someone wants to help, we could begin re-sourcing that so it can be included in the bio wiki here.  --Keyne 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jabrwock 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364082606  Legal News website, has an article on Video Games and Jack Thompson, tying him to Illinois an Michigan gaming bills, and the Best Buy lawsuit. --Tollwutig 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, I was looking for more info about that Nuisance lawsuit. Apparently the suit was dropped (it doesn't specify it though, but it was never settled so I assume) when Best Buy agreed to enforce their ID policy. This explains why Thompson announced he was suing them for violating that agreement after his son bought a copy of the Warriors at Best Buy in a "sting"... Jabrwock 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law.com

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

message: Can IGN be used as a source? They are considered quite reputable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did sources have to be NPOV? Since when is this even an issue? We can only cite sources which have zero bias? Well thank the lucky stars, it's time to shut down wikipedia because you're not going to find one source in the entire world that won't, under the right silver-tongued devil with a persecution complex, demonstrate any bias whatsoever. Hey, maybe we should just stop sourcing Jack himself since the assumption is he's inherently biased against gaming and gaming sites, and THUS CANNOT BE NPOV. Professor Ninja 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't assuming bias a bias in itself? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not whether it's NPOV, it's about verifiability. If IGN is quoting GamePolitics, then it's GP doing the original research, so it's GP's verifiability you need to argue, not IGN's. Jabrwock 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about IGN, not GP. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if it's IGN sourcing GP it might as well be GP.  Why don't you just list the article here and we can all evaluate it. -Quasipalm 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in your mind, any article that makes reference to anything anybody ever said has to have the verifiability of the original source tracked down. God, I hope no articles on WWII cite a newspaper from the 40s with a quote from Eisenhower or Truman, because tracking down the microfiches and resurrected the dead in a blasphemous voodoo ceremony to get them to verify their quotes is going to be a real bitch. Professor Ninja 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but any article that is just a rehash of another article, we should use the original article, because the original writer was the one who did all the research. The articles below are good examples of articles we can attribute to IGN, because they were the one's investigating the story... Jabrwock 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IGN]] 

message: For example, this USATODAY article which shows inmates being given videogame consoles for good behaviour and subsequently remaining trouble-free?
Or is that actionable libel too? Professor Ninja 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well this article is about adults and Thomson has said nothing about it nor has anyone else said anything about it regards to Mr. Thompson as far as I know. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's contrary evidence which has likewise been presented in every opinionated biographical article from Terri Schiavo to David Duke; that it's indirectly related to the person in question has never stopped it before, but then again, earlier one might have been under the impression that The Office was old enough to start shaving, so you can't be too careful these days. Professor Ninja 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you understand what CyberSkull was saying: Thompson's beef has always been about the affects of video games on children, not adults; even if he did talk about adults, I'm not sure that an article about giving inmates a $35 handheld would really be all that applicable. That being said, I do support an "industry response" section; I'm sure there's some good, verifiable quotes from ESRB officials, and Electronic Gaming Monthly did give Jack Thompson their "Jack Thompson is a Dumbass" award this year (I found it in LexisNexis!) And if we're interested, I could re-read Everything Bad Is Good For You and find some good parts. --Maxamegalon2000 14:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with an industry response section. But maybe we should limit it to official "response to JT" press releases like the ESRB, ESA, VDSA, etc. Of course EGM is going to give him the "Dumbass" award. The ACLU "Top 10 Censor of the Year" was much more significant. Jabrwock 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be Responses to Thompson. Not a specific industry.  Official repsonses like Stern's lunatic lawyer, NIMF's David Walsh please don't use my name, Reno's "I like big men, so no need to worry Jack" I will look on the NIMF's website, I think they posted Walsh's letter.--Tollwutig 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should find a source for Thompson's response, where he accuses Walsh of conflict of interest. Jabrwock 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article reference contrary evidence to Jack's position? 

message: I see nothing in the section on a modest video game proposal wherein Thompson contradicted his assertion that the proposal itself was only satire some time before he made the satire claim. This actually occured and is a verifiable event. I would assume that this documented email occurence that made it on to several sites would pass whatever magic verifiability test we're now under, so I was hoping if anybody could remember where it was that he blatantly lied either about one thing or the other. Professor Ninja 05:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He went on-air to clarify that the proposal itself was satire, but that the offer of $10,000 was "real". And to be fair to the man, no-one has actually fulfilled his original claim. Yeah it's over something as stupid as Paul Eibeler not picking a charity, but it *is* a criteria that he listed... Jabrwock 16:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson's claim of satire/modest game proposal 

message: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060320/NEWS/603200332/1006
Article which quotes his Testimony for the Delaware legislation--Tollwutig 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This isn't even speech," Thompson said, holding up a video-game display box. "This is software that enables a machine to allow a player to play a game." Jabrwock 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah thats one for the wikiquote for sure.Tollwutig 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaware 

message: Found a bunch of articles detailing Thompson's response to Walsh's letter.
Lawyer Jack Thompson bitten, bites back - The Inquirer UK
:Thompson has now responded with a cynical open letter of his own, in which he claims the relationship between retail partners, their legal teams and Target, who fund the NIMF is to blame for the disassociation.
:"Dr. Walsh's efforts are funded by Target and by a foundation run by Best Buy lawyer and Best Buy Director Elliot Kaplan," J.T. continued, "I am suing Target and Best Buy over the Bully game, which both Target and Best Buy are pre-selling. You connect the dots." 
Similar articles are also found in:
*Thompson hits back at US family organisation - GameIndustry.biz
*Thompson responds to cold shoulder - GameSpot
*Thompson hits back at NIMF - Eurogamer
*Game-hating lawyer discredited even more - BusinessWeek Online - CNet's Alpha Blog
Jabrwock 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking theinquirer.net, the gamesindustry.biz, and the gamespot articles are the best.  All are well written, and none of them mention blog sites as the source.  As those open letter's were sent out to multiple sites all 3 can cover it.   Also Gamespot features and update from the NIMF. I say we use these references, as all 3 report essentially the same thing.-Tollwutig 18:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson vs. NIMF & Walsh 

message: CBS GameCore: Jack Thompson Interview
You see, the industry is selling these games to kids whose parents are reckless.
How does free speech factor in?
There is no right of children to buy adult entertainment. None.
This has been disproven in multiple court cases, so if it's gonna go in the article,there has to be some courter points refrencing the supreme court ruling of the 70's that stated that minors do have 1st amendment rights as far as violence in media goes. Also we could referance recent ruling in illinois and washington, as well as michigan and californa. Just suggestions.(216.207.124.226 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thompson sued retailer Best Buy Co. Inc. under a Florida statute that prohibits the sale of sexual materials deemed harmful to minors, and argued the sale of violent and sexually explicit videos to minors was a public nuisance and a public safety issue. Thompson v. Best Buy, No. 04-23568 (Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct.). Best Buy agreed to enforce a nationwide policy, beginning this month, whereby the company would seek the identification of any person who looks 21 or younger and tries to buy M-rated videos.  Law.com I recommend finding out what the outcome of that suit was, from court documents. I don't know if he dropped the suit because they agreed to enforce their policy, or if that was the settlement agreed upon. I do know that after his little "sting" stunt with his son, he claimed they were in violation of that agreement, and said he was going to file another suit. But I don't know if he did or not. Jabrwock 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does that say "videos" instead of "videogames"? SanderJK 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just a typo. Jabrwock 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBS Interview 

message: If Jack Thompson was only about restricting games to children, he wouldn't be as much of a nutcase as he is (he'd still be a nut for other reasons, of course).  But the fact is, he seems to project the feeling that only children play video games, and no games should be marketed to adults anyway, because no adults play video games. It's not just that he's trying to get kids to stop playing, he's trying to get EVERYONE to stop playing. I believe the article should convey this information, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so. Anyone have quotes along these lines? Fieari 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the lines of has repeatedly stated that his only goal is to restrict children's access to adult media, but he has frequently attempted to prevent media from being available to anyone" (see Cop Killer, Bully, 2 Live Crew, etc) Jabrwock 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adults and Children 

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

message: I would assume that most people look up Jack Thompson in order to see the attorney rather than the actor or football player. Shouldn't this article be the main redirect? --Michiel Sikma 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Thompson was the original location of the article.  It was changed because it was deemed necessary.  I don't think it'll be changed back.--Vercalos 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can at least put the disambiguation page at Jack Thompson (disambiguation), and have Jack Thompson redirect either there or here.  That way, we can use  at the top of this page to link to that disambiguation page. I have no problem with keeping this page with the (attorney) parenthetical. Fieari 08:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why was it changed, Vercalos? You can state that it was changed to be like it is now, which is a fact, but that's not really argumentative; my argument is that the attorney is much more a popular search than the actor or football player, and that it would save a whole lot of people an extra click if the articles were named to reflect this. --Michiel Sikma 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: If you don't like the article, do some research. Find some verifiable sources.  The article should be NPOV, but NPOV can still show how the man acts, it just must let the reader decide if he is a lunatic or not.--Tollwutig 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great article. Almost every other sentence is cited. I didn't really believe in citing everything one writes before, but this has made me think otherwise. --Michiel Sikma 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

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

message: How come nothing is mentioned about the "Wikipedia issue?" It certainly is noteworthy as the story was widely circulated and even forced the article to be locked. 69.156.205.72 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How widely circulated was it? If it was picked up by legitimate news sources, which I don't think it was, then I don't think there would be much of an argument against including it. Again, though, I don't think anyone outside the Wikipedia community really noticed that much. --Maxamegalon2000 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google news comes up with nothing.  It has been reported on numerous internet sites though.  In order of Google Pagerank: digg.com, gamepolitics (I still don't see why we can't use them as a source...), news.gaminghorizon.com, arstechnica.com, gaminggroove.com (quoting gamepolitics), and numerous commentary blogs. Fieari 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, even though he himself confirmed that he "corrected" his own entry, the confirmation comes from posts made on GamePolitics, and all those posts were filtered when his IP got banned by LiveJournal... So even if GP was a valid source, they wouldn't be able to use it. I DO think though that the letter he wrote to Wikipedia should be a valid source. I'm sure some admin has a copy... Jabrwock 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Wikipedia in article?