Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 10

message: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wanted to say, better article... 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dave Grossman alliance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Metalgearsolid.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: I haven't found anything yet. --Maxamegalon2000 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I have. Because of the number of incidents, I made a new section. --Maxamegalon2000 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JT sues Florida Bar again? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks like it's used as a reference now. --Maxamegalon2000 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. --Maxamegalon2000 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --ElKevbo 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Disambig page seems reasonble. Shall we RFC it? Stevage 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity with [[Jack Thompson (actor)]] 

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

text: Agreed, I prefer the WCPO-TV pic.  --67.133.106.250 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture change 

message: It's been replaced with one of those register.com pages! --Maxamegalon2000 23:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hey, when did theflabar.org go down? 

message: 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)
thread_title: New Litigation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Blanked

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's this guy's e-mail address?