Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 8

message: :Hmmm.  Must remember to get a juris doctor.  Suing people who speak truth to power is EFFECTIVE! — WCityMike (T | C) 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Please provide specific criteria for defining a "Reputable Mainstream Source".216.89.171.253 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable Source Criteria

message: A link to his A Modest Video Game Proposal should be included. It is a notable event. He was trying to bait the industry to gain attention, and was called on it.
I think also that his Man in Miami stuff is also significant, as it documents his criticisms of Janet Reno, to whom he lost an election 10 years previously. Jabrwock 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable events 

message: http://reason.com/re/041999.shtml <- detail about him and Janet Reno
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/7/70516  <- A Link to all his newsmax articles(use archive.org for thoese that have been removed by the host)
http://www.theflabar.org <- his personal anti-Florida Bar site
According to this link http://lesbianstudies.com/oldsite/reno.htm which is certainly NOT strong enough for use here, the february 99 issue of Media Bypass (supposedly a print magazine) quotes Thompson as saying "I knew she was a lesbian and that troubled me as a Christian." If anyone could get a hold of the print magazine in question (which I'm unfamiliar with myself) then could this potentially be a good source on the whole Janet Reno thing?
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/NEWS01/602080339/1002  Is this an acceptable source?  The Baxter bulletin is a News Paper, although not a very large one, based out of Arkansas.  or is it not notable enough.--70.10.218.200 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Baxter Bulletin looked okay to me, I added in a sentence based on that news report. --Michael Snow 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051019-5458.html I'm not certain if ArsTechnica counts as a "reputable mainstream source", but this news posting has a number of links in it to other of Jack's antics that ought to be included in the new article.  If this is to be an encyclopedic entry, then it ought to give a full picture of the man.  Similarly, Gamespot News has a good aricle here http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135979.html regarding the Penny-Arcade hoopla following "A Modest Game Proposal" 216.89.171.253 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Nobody is saying that a video game by itself can turn someone into a mass killer," he said. "But the law is that if you make a product that is linked in a chain of events, and but for that link the final tragedy would not have occurred, you are liable. You don't have to have little angels turned into killers." 
INAL but wouldn't that make a ridiculous amount of people liable? Is that really the requirement for liability? Surely there has to be a degree of negligence or similar. Anyways it's a little besides the point because proving that the game was a crucial link is nearly impossible. It's not enough to prove it was an influence... which probably explains why he's not had much luck at this suing videogame companies.--Plagiarize 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we have anyone knowledgable enough in the field of law to confirm or deny the information contained in this quote from Mr. Thompson?  It seems to me that this would be untrue, as you would have to prove causation.  By the logic presented in this quote, I could say that using a toilet was the cause of both Adolph Hitler's mass-murders and the DC Sniper's shootings, since they had very little in common other than both used toilets.  This is an extreme, silly example, but hey... 216.89.171.253 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Then as such I'd say it would qualify as a reputable source. Tollwutig 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lets hope my memory isn't cheating me. I won't be home for a couple of hours, but if anyone else has the issue in question, please chime in. It was certainly in EGM, there's a banner across the top of the article to that effect.--Plagiarize 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Links Here 

message: There should at least be a criticism or controversy section on this article, as Jack is a notably infamous figure in the internet gaming community. 64.26.147.176 17:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The "Modest Proposal" was referenced by many gaming sites, as he sent a copy to all of them. No "mainstream" media picked up the story, because it was an obvious attempt just to garner media attention. Nevertheless, the challenge to the industry was made, and Thompson sparred with various groups over the wording, and whether various groups had satisfied the criteria, resulting in the Penny-Arcade incident. Thompson has been interviewed about it several times by gaming sites, where he insisted the offer is real. Even G4 TechTV's AOTS "The Feed" covered it (although their commentary on it was predictably biased). 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In response to Thompson's behavior regarding Penny-Arcade's response to Thompson's "Modest Proposal"Matt Saunderson. "Attorney Proposes Violent Game". Advanced Media Network, October 10, 2005., Penny Arcade forum members wrote, edited and sent letters and faxes to the Florida Bar Association detailing Thompson's activities and urging the review of his license to practice law. A representative of the Florida Bar Association acknowledged that they received several thousand complaints, and that the letters and faxes were forwarded to the disciplinary committee. The FBA later declined to investigate. Thompson sent his own letter to the FBA, reminding them that the last time he was investigated their insurance carrier had to pay him damages. Tor Thorsen. "Thompson not being investigated over Penny Arcade feud...yet". GameSpot, October 20, 2005.
Following his dismissal from the Strickland vs. Sony case in Alabama, the Florida Bar once again opened an investigation into Thompson's behavior, following a referral by judicial officials in Alabama. Thompson responded with a letter threatening to contact the Bar's insurance carrier over "[t]he Bar's ongoing, recidivist, tortious conduct". Dennis McCaulley, "Thompson Investigated by Florida Bar over Alabama Video Game Case". GamePolitics, December 27, 2005. At the time, the FBA had 3 investigations into complaints made about Thompson: one by law firm Blank Rome, one for the Alabama Bar Association, and one pertaining to Howard Stern. Dennis McCaulley, "Thompson Complaints Piling Up with Florida Bar Association". GamePolitics, January 31, 2006.
As of 8 January 2006, Jack Thompson's website stopkill.com, dedicated to video game activism, has been closed down and redirected to a spam site.
Thompson's new website theflabar.org criticized the Florida Bar Association and others, citing ethical and moral disputes. The final note on the website asked anyone who views the page to help bring "overdue reform" to the Florida Bar Association because "bad lawyers are going untouched, and innocent lawyers are being skewered."
:I still dont know why we cant have a link to his website, somewhere IanC 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added a link and small bit about his website, does it look ok? Will figure out the rest later IanC 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i put it in the wrong place. Still, good its there, now to see about the rest of this IanC 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, and just for future reference, I'll mention the comment you rewrote about WHOIS confirming that it's his website, something I checked as well. --Michael Snow 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, we can include his personal website as a primary source (see Reliable Sources).  --Keyne 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida bar investigations - review 

message: Jack Thompson Versus Gamers
Details the fight between Penny-Arcade & Thompson over "A Modest Video Game Proposal".
The article does cite other sources, such as GamePolitics, GameSpot, Advanced Media News, and Penny-Arcade, but I would think that Wired would certainly be considered a "verifiable" source, since they are a large enough media organization to do some fact checking. Jabrwock 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd consider it reputable for these purposes, and it's a much more usable summary of that story. Thanks for pointing out the article. --Michael Snow 18:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll write up something about his battle with Penny-Arcade over "A Modest Proposal", using the Wired article as reference. Jabrwock 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already put it in. Note that Wired News still got the full name of the ESA wrong. --Michael Snow 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI. You've properly surmised the wired.com article and as such, don't really have to worry about it, but i'm pretty sure that this is one of the contentious points with Jack. The details of his proposal, which wired.com don't list, stated that the game had to be commercially available. None of the ones made were. While we don't have to worry that wired.com didn't get their facts right technically, i think Jack's actions after the fact speak for themselves without misrepresenting his proposal. If I see a better summary from an equally reputable source, I'll let you know.--Plagiarize 20:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, GameSpot is owned by C|Net now, which owns: BNET | CNET.com | CNET Channel | CNET Download.com | CNET News.com | GameSpot | International Media | MP3.com | mySimon | Release 1.0 | Search.com | TechRepublic | TV.com | Webshots | ZDNet. They're rather a large corporation now, so I'd assume they've got the same range of credibility as Wired (in terms of verifiability anyway). Jabrwock 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wired news a credible source? 

message: This article, as it is now, is pretty much the same as it was before. Most of the same facts are still here, and all of the truth is still being told. The only difference now is that there are references and sources backing it all up. It's pretty damn impressive, to be honest. I understand that many of you don't like Jack Thompson. I don't blame you. I don't really like what he's done in the past, either. But, his actions are no reason to make a libelous page that defames him and is full of inaccuracies. We Wikipedians agreed by concensus that this project aims to be an accurate, complete compendium of knowledge, and so the full story must be told, even when the subject is not a very nice person. - CorbinSimpson 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "full story" can never be told, due to Wikipedia:V limitations. --Keyne 20:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. Because a lot of Thompson's activities have been under the anonymity of the web. On TV and in print, he's a poster boy for reasonable parental concern over the effects of media influence. On-line he's the poster boy for the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" Jabrwock 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could all the detractors just shut up for a minute? 

message: Can't we at least say that he's "allegedly" unfit to serve as a lawyer?
Jack Thompson's many allegations are listed in the article, and they have far less basis in fact.
There are hundreds of questionable, rude, immature and insulting statements attributed to Jack Thompson quoted across the entire internet, and ignoring even the hint of their existence is, quite frankly, an irresponsible denial of the reality out there. 
The volume of serious reports by career professionals could only be the result of a massive international conspiracy if not at least based in some fact.
Let's use some occam's razor here.  
Even if every single quote is false, then at least they constitute a massive cultural phenomenon that deserves mentioning.
On a related note, I think Thompson's threats against Amazon.com are well-documented enough to include, if someone collects the sources. - 24.42.67.191 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be some mention of such things, in a well-documented manner.  Still, it's probably overkill to give a highly detailed blow-by-blow account of every online flame war he's ever involved himself in, which was the direction the old article seemed to be going in.  It's not necessarily highly notable every single time he says something inflammatory online, though his general tendency to do such things might be collectively notable. *Dan T.* 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately the Amazon.com thing was all deleted by Amazon.com, so unless you can point to archival information from Amazon.com or get them to publically release the letter to a reputable news media and that source publishes it, there is no way to reference the in article.Tollwutig 20:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We shouldn't really say 'allegedly' in that context. What we could do, is for example, cite an example of a case where someone else of reputation alleged that JT isn't fit to be a lawyer.  We shouldn't be alleging things, but we're welcome to include references to other people doing just that, so long as they're verifiable. 'So and so has alleged on more than one occasion that JT isn't fit to practice law.' is fine as far as I can see. Now we just need to find good examples.--Plagiarize 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I concur - A few well chosen, well researched example should do nicely.  I think we have a good start with the Jent Reno debacle.  --ElKevbo 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson has far more than enough sourced quotes to create a "Feud with Gamepolitics.com" section, a "Open Letters" section (describing the various open letters he has released to the public, and more. His racist comments against Islam and Scottish people are both documented there, with valid news sources. - 24.42.67.191 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly? 

message: I've added the controversy section back in, and it should stay in. It is relevant information. Why is Wikipedia removing so much information that has been reference and proved as fact? Are they afraid that Thompson will sue them for using the First Amendment? I swear we should add the section where he threatened Wikipedia. It speaks a lot about his character. --Shaoken 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Quick edit due to typo.  Daily not monthly.  I blame work.  :) KiTA 23:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Miami New Times is a free alternative weekly, not a daily paper. In this situation it is obvious that they made a mistake. I looked through the Miami Herald's coverage of Thompson's state attorney run on microfilm tonight, and predictably there was no mention of Reno's Parkinson's disease. More on that later. Rhobite 02:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I find J.T., the article on him, and this Talk page, interesting, I'm not interested in getting into the discussion much. But I will say one thing: while I understand the possible temporal problems of saying that J.T. has accused Janet Reno of being a "closeted lesbian deranged by medication for Parkinson's disease" (and especially the problems that come with quotation marks—i.e., wondering whether the quotation marks mean that J.T.'s exact words are being quoted, or whether the quotation marks mean that the words are quoted from another source, a source that was paraphrasing J.T. but not quoting him exactly)—as I was saying, while I understand that problems do come with such a quote, the quote isn't inherently erroneous simply because of the temporal issue. When I say that Ronald Reagan "was a lifeguard, a radio announcer, a Hollywood actor, a California governor, and a U.S. president, who died in 2004", I'm not saying that all those different things (his lifeguarding; his radio announcing; his Hollywood acting; his governing California; his U.S. presidency; and his death, in 2004) happened at once. So, if we have a reputable source that says that J.T. called J.R. a closeted lesbian (whether his exact words or not)—at any point in the history of the universe—, and if we have a reputable source that says that J.T. said J.R. was deranged by Parkinson's medication (whether his exact words or not)—at any point in the history of the universe—, then, while it is not necessarily totally clear, it is also not inaccurate to say that he called her a "closeted lesbian deranged by medication for Parkinson's disease". While a reader may erroneously think that we mean that Ronald Reagan was swimming, making radio announcements, acting, and governing both California and all of the U.S., all while on his deathbed in 2004, we aren't automatically making a mistake by writing that he "was a lifeguard, a radio announcer, a Hollywood actor, a California governor, and a U.S. president, who died in 2004". If I, on Monday, say that J.T. lives in Florida, and I, on Tuesday, say that J.T. is a lawyer, it's not wholly wrong for you, on Wednesday, to say that I have said that J.T. is a lawyer who lives in Florida, even though my two statements that you're combining were made on different days. That's all. President Lethe 22:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy (2)

message: I'm editing the L.A. Times references so they link to the official archive, although they only provide a short summary for free, you need to pay to get the full article. But I think it's useful to include it so that people can get the full original article if they so choose. 
Also, anyone adding references from now on, PLEASE try and include a link to the article referenced, to an archive where the article can be purchased, or if it's a book, to where it can be purchased. I think it would be *really* handy for people trying to get background info. As was said before, we cannot provide copies of copyrighted material, but we *can* make it easier for people to be able to figure out where to purchase copies. Jabrwock 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper archives 

message: Can we gather all potential source links under this heading, to make it easier for the authors to find and verify them?  Just trying to make things easier to find.  Also if you feel this wouldn't be a reputable source mark it as such Tollwutig 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Jabrwock, and thats what I want to get down to here. If someone has a link post it in this section. Then we can gather a better consensus on each link.  Here are quite a few from above.  Also if you can note whether or not the source is now being used in the article itself. Tollwutig 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the audio link should be used and referenced. Can't get more credible than audio of the person themselves.Tollwutig 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Links 

message: Since this article is now a stub I think we should combine all sub-articles relating to Jack thompson into this article so we can lengthen it, remove bias, and delete some no longer needed articles.
I don't know what you're reading but it isn't a Stub anymore. Tollwutig 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why don't we

message: Would any of Jack's comments from his July 31st interview with Chatterbox Game Radio (podcast that is also broadcast on radio station KFNX 1100am in Arizona) be a "verifiable" source to site for the page?
Namrepus221 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link where we can download this or something?  It sounds verifiable to me.  Anything a person says, naturally, can be used for or against them.  And if there's a recording of it, it's no longer just unverifiable hearsay.  --Cyde Weys 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its archived at http://www.chatterboxgameshow.com/jack.htm in an mp3 format. --Keyne 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian has stated above that downloadable audio interviews are referenceable.. as they are kinda hard to refute. Tollwutig 04:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the article still needs some work.  One thing you have hardly anything regarding Stern.  Not to give the man credit but it is one of his own trumpeting points for himself, and is much bigger point in his career than the rap music. Consider that Stern calls him that "This Lunatic Lawyer in Miami" pretty if someone as notable as Stern mentions you, its a notable event in one's career.  We're not saying do a laundry list but need to include ALL aspects of someone, to make it NPOV.  --Tollwutig 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chatterbox 

message: I rewrote the "controversy" section, based on some Miami Herald articles I printed from microfilm today. I renamed the section "1988 state's attorney election" because that was its only topic. I suppose I could scan and e-mail the articles to someone if they really, really wanted. The Herald is a better source than the Stanford article, which cites newspapers as its own sources. There are also inaccuracies: Issues2000.org (and presumably Anderson's book) says that the two were at a debate when Thompson gave Reno the note, but the Herald says that the two were speaking at North Beach Elementary School on Thursday September 8 1988. Predictably, the Herald makes no mention of Parkinson's. Rhobite 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I moved it to the beginning of the article, so that it fits in with the chronology. I think that was discussed earlier in the talk page by Michael Snow. --Maxamegalon2000 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's because we were both working on it at the same time. I've merged them back together, and removed the third- and fourth-hand sources in favor of a more direct report. --Michael Snow 04:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think yours is more balanced anyway. Rhobite 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there anything to indicate that the interview was why he ran for office? It doesn't even matter whether he dislikes Reno as a person or not, what's notable about them is that they campaigned against each other and figured in some notable public events. Unless something establishes a connection to those, I don't see why a private interview is relevant to what's in the article. You can draw inferences all you like on your own, but that's effectively original research and you have to resist the urge to write your personal conclusions into the article. --Michael Snow 05:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Herald, he ran against Reno because she refused to prosecute Neil Rogers. Rhobite 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and the St. Petersburg Times says it was because of the lesbian rumors. Both of those bits are in there, and there may be more reasons he ran, but they would need to be supported by sources saying as much directly. --Michael Snow 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only have access to the first chapter of his book where he covers his interview, and admittedly I am not charitable enough towards Thompson to shell out $10 to buy his book. Maybe someone can find it in a Library somewhere.  I'll ask around to people I know who have read it to see if he mentions his reasons for his political run.--Tollwutig 18:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: His grudge with Reno started long before his political run, he has had a grudge against her since his last year in Law School. Tollwutig 14:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more important then to show how long running his beef with her has been. Nearly 30 years of trying to discredit her, most recently with his inferral in his book that she hated cops. He's been after her longer than he's been a "dencency crusader"... Jabrwock 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I posted a link in the Links section to a national online newspaper archive.  It's got just about ALL of the Thompson v Reno stories archived.  If someone were to use it at a library as a reference of when to look they could find all the relevent Reno stuff. And since it is a 30 year grudge it should figure prominently in his article.--Tollwutig 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy rewrite 

message: What a shock it was to see the new sterile pro-Jack page.  Leave it blank, he's of no interest now and I'm sure when he saw it, he was Mr. Happy, if you catch my drift. Maluka 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? A tribute to JT?? 

message: During the whole "gamer suicide" episode on Game Politics, Jack Thompson insulted me. (as that is what he does on the internet.)
I sent him an email asking for an apology, emails went back and forth, then he CALLED MY CELLPHONE. My caller ID displayed his PUBLIC PHONE NUMBER that is listed. I'm not sure why that isn't verifyable.
I'm also very dissapointed with Wikipedia. Online sources are the way things are going, Wikipedia is a perfect example. This hipocrasy will not stand. Something will happen, Wikipedians will complain, or eventually leave. I'm close. When one man stirs a community so much on the INTERNET, and yet it cannot be reported because its all "anonymous" (despite easy verification from Joystiq, or Dennis from GP). That is crap, and something needs to be done about it. Loque 07:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read Wikipedia's verifiability policy and no original research policy if you haven't read them already, or read them again in more detail if you have. Material must be published by reliable third-party sources before it can be included in Wikipedia. --bainer (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines need to be applied to all articles, there are no exceptions from policies such as verifiability and neutral point of view for subjects which you think ought to be 'given the finger'. If you wish to give Thompson the finger, please do it yourself. --bainer (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The key word is "verifiable."  Most of the "colorful" things he has stated are not able to be admitted due to being unverifiable, nor should they be.  I don't believe this is really the place for mud-slinging.  In its curent form, it is actually a much stronger article; both for and against JBT.  That's a good thing. --Keyne 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Its not a matter of internet sources don't count.  Its a matter of reputable sources which according to verifiability blogs and message boards do not qualify.  Technically LiveJournal and thus Gamepolitics is a blog/message board. This makes things a little difficult, and some of the wildest stuff won't be able to be put in, but as Micheal Snow stated earlier this should be an encyclopedia entry, not a laundry list of all the scandals a Thompson has been involved in.--Tollwutig 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically, articles with bad sources are in need of clean up.  Articles are inherantly stronger, for better or worse, when references are properly cited and backed up with reputable origins.  Otherwise, [we] could quote phpBB forums stating anything and everything, which is more than likely not fact-checked, horribly POV, and otherwise unfit for an encyclopedic entry.  --Keyne 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can verify he was on Game Politics. 

message: I know a lot of people here think GP is a fantastic site (and I'm not just saying that because I'm a correspondant... :P )
BUT, GP is no longer a source for Jack quotes/press releases, as his ban from LiveJournal has resulted in all 12 (?) of his accounts's posts being replaced by "reply from a suspended user". So the links to his press releases, and bad behavior, all point to empty posts now... FYI Jabrwock 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And as well as that, wikiquote links to the same sources anyway.  IanC 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That would still fall under original research.  Only way you can get thos comments included would be to get a 3rd party to publish them.--Tollwutig 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can certainly still link to wikiquote elsewhere if they want to direct people to a repository of JT insanity. I know I'll still be sharing that link to people. We just can't link to it as part of the article. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to reference other wikipedia articles directly in backing up a statement, so they don't allow other Wikis. If that seems crazy, think about it. I could make a post on why x=y and then a post on why y=x and cross reference them. all unverified.--Plagiarize 15:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GamePolitics = not verifiable, anymore 

message: Reno Redux in Florida
Under advice of its counsel, in 1990 it tried to disbar me and got a famously partisan Supreme Court of Florida to order me immediately to submit to a psychiatric examination on the grounds that I was mentally incompetent by virtue of a disabling obsession with pornography." Thompson submitted to the examination in good humor and was given a clean bill of health. "I'm proud to say that I'm not only still practicing law," he says, "I am the only officially certified sane lawyer in the entire state of Florida.
Moved this to the bottom of the talk pages. New subject headers should be created at the bottom.--Tollwutig 16:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if someone can find somewhere else to cite this as well as the time lines are vague. The 2 Live Crew thing went into the 90s but here they only list after 1998 then without dates until 1990 when the FLSC ordered the evaluation.--Tollwutig 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason is not included because the explanation comes from a suspect source. I would want to see the order, or some reporting directly about the order, to support the reason it was given. The order certainly couldn't have said that he was mentally incompetent, the point of the psychiatric examination was to determine that. --Michael Snow 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, we just have Thompson's word it not actual evidence. When I get time I'll try and find out exactly what happened, now I know more about what case it related to and such.--Plagiarize 21:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thompson's book can also be cited. I am not sure which chapter but he still gloats he is the only officially sane lawyer in florida.  Anyone have his boo? --Tollwutig 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanity claim 

message: Now that you've removed everything Jack told you to, he's still not going to leave you alone. To him, this will be considered an admission of guilt and the lawsuit will still go on. This is exactly how it occured when he threatened another site to take down an avatar of him being hit in the head with a game console. Mr.Pat 19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But because the avatar was taken down, he no longer had a case. He can't punish them for having the avatar if they aren't posting it anymore... Which is why he resorted to trying to get them arrested, which didn't work out either. Jabrwock 19:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all verifiable public record.  I wouldn't worry too much.  --Keyne 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Knowing the extent of Jack's ego, I'm pretty sure he's going to complain why his "predictions" or "victories" aren't listed.KungFu-tse 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His "victories" are listed, those that we can verify.  However, putting someone's predictions in an encyclopedic entry is just silly, unless they are known for such things (like Nostradomus or something).  I can predict any number of things, and if one of them happens to come true, so what?  1 guess out of 100 doesn't mean I know anything, it just means I've made a lot of guesses. 216.89.171.253 22:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, and look at the article right now. Seems more NPOV then it was yesterday. Sure it doesn't have everything yet, but it doesn't praise the man anymore.BrendantheJedi 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I've got news for you guys

message: Thompson also claims that some violent video games are based on technology from the Institute for Creative Technologies, which was created by the Department of Defense to help stem soldiers' inhibition to kill. According to Thompson, "The Army uses these games to break down the inhibition to kill of new recruits."  Since it's not an online source, I can't check the cite - but presumably this is a direct reference to the 2004 game Full Spectrum Warrior, which makes no secret of its DoD/ICT connection. Zoganes 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget about America's Army. --Keyne 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: America's Army is recruitment propaganda; it sells the idea that the U.S. Army is a good career choice, people in the army already don't need that. It only can possibly refer to Full Spectrum Warrior and Full Spectrum Command. I had originally written this in the original article (with an explanatory parenthetical concerning the fact that the U.S. army commisioned FSW/C as a tool to teach their soldiers tactical teamwork instead of having them play mindless shooters. I guess this is "slanted" POV because it simoultaneously disproves that a) the U.S. military uses games to desensitize since, of course, they commissioned a game to STOP their soldiers from playing those games and b) that FSW/C were made to teach them command and control, not killing) before the wikimedia foundation decided to sell their integrity. Professor Ninja 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And the special version of DOOM, "Marine Doom", that was created in 1998 for fireteam training Namrepus221 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military funded games

message: I've added a small section on Jack Thompson threatening legal action against wikipedia. Could use some editing and obviously anyone who questions the validity of the source is a moron. Thus if this section ends up getting deleted by the mods it will speak volumes upon volumes on what REALLY happened concerning Jack and Wikipedia. Father Time89
:: I think the section would work best in a sub-section about the insane amount of people he has threatened to sue, unfortunly considering he sends out like 3 press releases(or ccs sue threat e-mails to the press) a day about all the people he is going to sue, nobody but extreme niche sites report on that and apparently we can only use sources that don't give two flips about jack thompson or doing any research on him 203.112.2.212 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reliable source as Wikipedia can not cite itself and is not considered a valid source. Again, nobody really cares about Jack Thompson besides niche media, so no newspaper is ever going to report on these things, so according to Michael Snow in the context of this article, it never happened. Censoring through sources 203.112.2.212 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I responded on your talk page already. If you think a post by a completely unknown person on a Wikipedia talk page is an acceptable source to support adding some fact to an encyclopedia article, there really isn't any point in discussing with you. --Michael Snow 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, User:XSTRIKEx6864 says that he got the quotes from Jack's letter from GamePolitics. --Maxamegalon2000 01:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm with you all the way Fathertime, but according to Mr.Snow the new appointed guardian of this page, nothing is reliable unless it has come from the mainstream press(and according to offical Wikipedia policy, wikipedia in any form not a valid source). aka, according to Mr.Snow, it's possible a corpoate gaming news site have an agenda and are just making up the fact that he treatened to sue them, whereas mainstream newspress would fact check it. And apparantly thourgh some warped recursive logic that doesn't make any sense, saying that a person has been accused of something by another person is not considered enclyopedic information because you don't have a reliable source(even if the accusation is coming straight from the second person's site), unless a 3rd party major news outlet reported on this, then you can say newspaper reported that so and so accused someone of something. 203.112.2.212 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Already exists on wikiquotes and I'm adding it in, of course that wikiquotes page is probably going to die too, once Mr.Snow takes a look at it and see all those press releases with no sources. 203.112.2.212 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki section