Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 4

message: I think this article could benfit from a Peer Review. That ought to silence any conserns about POV. Anyone agree? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: .  Looks like he's gone back on his word. Edits to reflect this, please? --Breathstealer 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but really: . --Maru (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Proposal Cancelled 

message: This article is just a collection of counterpoint editorials.  I expected an encyclopedia article.  What a shame. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.162.205 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2005 October 17.
:And this is where you come in, if you feel that the article has it's faults. Then you can help edit it. Good luck. :) --Havok (T/C) 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a shame 

message: :"Despite the failure of the Paducah lawsuit, Thompson has continued to pursue in court the makers of violent video games. For example, he has attempted to link the Columbine High School massacre and the Washington Sniper to first-person shooters, in the latter making various claims regarding God mode (despite the fact that such a mode does not exist in the game) and the zoom function of Halo's sniper rifle and pistol. He has frequently attacked Rockstar, linking Rockstar North's Manhunt game and Grand Theft Auto series to a wide variety of murders, particularly those involving vehicles or weapons other than firearms."
This needs to be clarified I think, but I don't know enough about the details to do it myself. Is Halo the game that Jack incorrectly claimed had a "God Mode" when he was making reference to Columbine and DC Sniper cases? Or was this specific to the DC Sniper one? Maybe that second sentence just needs to be rewrote; the first reference to "first person shooters", followed by the "despite the fact that such a mode does not exist in the game", then finally mentioning Halo is a bit confusing. --Jayhawk88 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right... it never mentions what game has no "God mode." Maybe there was another comment clarifying that, but it was removed or changed, for another reason? We might want to remove that sentence until we have enough information to clarify it, because right now, it makes no sense. --Wikivader 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that John Lee Malvo's attorney's made the HALO case themselves (along with HALO, they mentioned The Matrix video game and a few others that had a sniper mode).  Slung 17:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I think the neutrality of this article seriously needs to be disputed.  There's some particularly powerful language in the correspondance section.  Likewise, I think we need to add the 'Current Event' boilerplate warning as well. --Orang55 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That section in particular strikes me as someone attempting to legitimize their venomous statements by speaking in a firm, factual-sounding way. Though many of the facts regarding Mr. Thompson embarass him, no amount of evidence justifies putting this much bile in an encyclopedia. I think the Correspondence section could be pared down considerably without the article suffering. It ought to be enough to include in a small paragraph something along the lines of "Thompson has gained a reputation online for dealing with opponents by ridiculing and/or threatening them with legal action." A massive bulleted list seems a bit excessive. --198.166.245.175 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason Jack even has his own page be due to the fact that he go seeking media attention by lashing at the games industry in a most contraversial (and quite stupid) way as well as being outspoken against it (in ways many deem fabricated and idiotic). As such, I don't see a problem with netizens calling him out for what he is. I mean, why should he be more important than other lawyers in general, or politicians who work against the games industry as that he should get a spotlight such as this (which to remind you is exactly what he seek). Jack want to get into the "history pages"? I say fine. Here you go. But the netizens write this one particular history book. And as such, they should have a say as to the nature of this person which appears in it. All in all, if you so disapprove, then wiki should remove Jack from its pages altogether. Why should he be catered to and get the attention, if the netizens don't get to have their say on him? Blank him out entirely as the inconsequential ant that he is. --82.80.1.104 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that wikis are created by netizens is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a comprehensive archive of facts, NOT a forum for the expression of the netizen point of view. Being the authours of an encyclopedia doesn't grant us the right to cram our personal feelings in with the facts, regardless of how valid these feelings may be. It defeats the point of an encyclopedia. --198.166.245.175 14:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Since I am definitely not alone on this, I am disputing the POV of this article, and have added the appropriate boilerplate text to the article.  The article needs to be completely rewritten and protected for the time being.  This is ridiculous.   --Orang55 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to agree with you as well, which is why I was working on the article around the time you added the POV template. --silsor 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is far from a NPOV, especially after your edits, silsor. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "correspondence" and "typical assertions" sections are the worst.  Other than that, the external links needs a second trimming pass and the article needs to be refactored. --silsor 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sole reason for this page to exist is his behavior. So you want to remove the links which demonstrates said behavior? Also, if you want to be so documented, this is documentations. In addition, those are FACTS that he is, if to use better words: fabricating lies, twisting truths, throwing slander, sueing on left and right people who disagree with him, calling people deregatory names and comparing them to hitler and to be simple and honest: being a complete retarded jackass. Suck it down and face the truth, or vaporize the page entirely. You know, I start to doubt your motives. Maybe you are Jack's biased crones. Maybe you are jack himself. It would fit his style to do this. Oh and if someone jump with the IP excuse and I have to explain newbies WTF is a proxy one more time... I'll sue you under extreme retardation and claim you should be banned from the Internet as that you obviously not smart enough to be allowed unsupervisied access to it and your presence is harmful. You know what, forget it. I AM going to start protesting for his removal. The less records of this baboon on the internet the better, he doesn't deserve it. He's not Hitler, he's not a mob boss. He's just a low life, wannabe-evil in the simplest form, there's nothing unique about him. It's better to invest these bytes for activists trying to save the ocean layer or something that's actually important and consequential to our and our kid's future than a failed lawyer gone berzerk on the most stupid things ever. --82.80.1.104 19:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: This is an encyclopedia. I strongly believe that Jack Thompson is a scab and a wastrel, but the whole point of an encyclopedia is to be objective. I'm actually very impressed with the edits that have been made in the past few hours, most of which Silsor seems to be responsible for (I tip my hat to him). They manage to demonstrate the kind of dreadful man Thompson is by using only well-documented facts, instead of the vague statements that were in the Correspondence section before. That's actually much more effective. Don't get so worked up, because I'm pretty sure most of us are on the same side of the issue itself. We just need to excercise sense and restraint for the good of Wikipedia and its credible reputation. 198.166.245.175 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: He is objectively an ass, so I don't see how pointing that out isn't NPOV. --Talain 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We need an article about him because he's famous.  The link trimming I was talking about is for links that are relevant to the discussion but not important enough to be included in the article for various reasons (for example, some blogger's random rant against Jack Thompson, or a web page that contains only the words "true asshole" over a background image of Jack (this one was real), or somebody's copy of their email correspondence with him which only rehashes topics covered in the article and in other correspondences).  You might get along better if you weren't so angry :) silsor 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After several decades, using high words and pacifist methods while seeing "the problem" (IRL and internet retardecy in general) still out at large, you kind of get worn down and decide that capital punishment might just be the perfect solution. I'm no racist, I dislike fanatical extremists and religeous types, but quite frankly, I'm also very tired of "shit". I spent a very good long time (years) in a place where trash talk is dominant, among other bad circles. But like evil, at the end you get bored, understand it's just dumb as hell and outgrow it. Sadly, for some people, they're too far down the lane and too few decades left to live to realise this simple fact. - The Liberal who would fight to the death to defend your basic human right to beat the living shit out of your neighbor for peeping into your doughter's bedroom. 82.80.1.104 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: A paragraph or two of the section on NIMF support is a copyvio of http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12259. I will rewrite this. A single sentence from   the part about Tycho (Mike Krahulik) is also a copyvio from that article. Should that be rewritten as well? --Migs 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Closet Homosexuality and something else... uh... slave to violent porn, i think, was linked in the 'See also' section. While i really don't like Jack Thompson at all (The fool retracted his $10,000 offer to a charity, claiming... well, you know, it's in the article) I don't think that that really belongs there. --Lum 10:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closet Homosexuality? 

message: Just because some people posted information without sources doesn't mean this should suddenly be considered non-neutral. There is an edit button, use it and leave a summary of your changes. Also, don't expect DNA sample on faxes to consider a news article legit. Everything at wikipedia is based on articles and the press, if a few reputable websites are currently reporting the same story consider it legit until demonstrated otherwise.
This article is much more neutral than various other topics at wikipedia that have not been slapped with a non-neutral tag. Use the Edit button, that's all.
69.159.111.100 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been edited considerably over the past several hours and become a LOT more neutral, but believe me, when that tag first got slapped on, it was an extremely and blatantly biased article. Whether or not it's been fixed up enough I'm not sure, but the initial decision to attach the tag was justified at the time that it was done. 198.166.245.175 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It's come a long way in just a few hours.  The "Modest Proposal" section still needs some work, but I probably wouldn't have slapped the NPOV tag on the article if it were in the condition it is now.  Nonetheless, I think the article still needs a little more work before it's taken down.--Orang55 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is neutral 

message: Is now staring in bright red at the bottom of his personal page stopkill.com.
[edit] silsor is right, this turned into discussion of my opinion of wikipedia itself, which is of no relevance, so I'm editing it out.
82.80.1.104 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question here is not how accessable his personal information is or how accessable this article makes it. The issue is do you put personal contact information in an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. At least not in any encyclopedia I've never seen. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, no difference than making available other celebrity or notorious people's contacts, their residence, their agent's contact or a support/fan group. Whatever is the reason you wish to contact, the ideal is same - CONTACT, getting in touch, reaching someone. Doesn't matter why, it's the accessability which matters. And since this person has placed himself willingly (even pushing to get there?) into the spotlight, and himself publicizes his contact information, then why not include it? Because it's supposedly an encyclopedia? This is a record, recording, archive, nothing more. An internet archive, which evolves and updates. For the time being, while it's a "hot" issue, it is relevant to list his contacts. When he expire, you may list his burial grounds as well, as I do believe is common practice in encyclopedias. 82.80.1.104 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack's Contact Information