Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 13

message: We can sidestep the WP:RS discussion if we confirm that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a proposed Show Cause order to the judge.. after all, if we just report that Take Two/Blank Rome had filed a Show Cause order (as I put in, with no POV Leanings earlier in the article), and the judge deferred, as he had recused himself from the case due to partiality (due to the Florida Bar complaint), that should satisfy both WP:RS AND WP:NPOV, Correct? SirFozzie 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have a link to Florida's case system online? 

message: It's rather hard to read through the litigation section, could we break it down into cases with sub-headers: James v. Meow Media (Paducah), Lynch, Tennessee, Devin Moore, Best Buy "sting", Bully lawsuits, and Cody Posey? Or even move the case files to new wiki entries, such as with James v. Meow Media? Jabrwock 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the size of the article, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but how many articles do we want?  I know of one with his involvement in the Jacob Robida situation. SirFozzie 20:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section summaries? 

message: I know I know, not reliable. But it's a heads up. Judge Friedman reclused himself from ruling whether JT was in contempt, apparently due to the fact that he had filed his own Florida Bar complaint against JT. JT grabbed by 4 police officers when he refuses to stop holding up a large posterboard in court. Destructoid will have the videotape of the event posted later. Presumably Take Two will ask the next judge to continue with the contempt ruling. Jabrwock 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the video: http://www.destructoid.com/jack-thompson. It also seems that Jack Thompson is a Mortal Kombat: Armageddon fighter as well. Boy, he sure seems to get around these days. :P (Oh, and apparently Jack is also demanding that Midway cease and desist because of this.) MarphyBlack 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a section about his actions in the case Friedman is presiding over. It should also list his actions as outlined by the court reporter and witnesses. - 59.167.30.29 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not yet in contempt, but complaint filed 

message: And broke it down into four sections,
:Early Litigation (vs Quake et all)
:Thompson V Grand Theft Auto (Maybe should have its own article?)
:Thompson V Bully (Maybe should have its own article?)
: Miscellaneous Litigation (the Cease and Desist order to Midway, etcetera)
What do you guys think? SirFozzie 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can think of changing is maybe  Jack Thompson vs Rockstar/Take-Two article and linking it to cut down on this article.  I think Jack's Personal Crusade against Rockstar is note worthy enough to make a note of, but can it be done in a NPOV article?  This way we could just say in the Thompson article that Thompson has been in court against Take-Two and then point them to the appropriate article.  --Tollwutig 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated the section dealing with Litigation

message: If so, is there anything that should be added to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't got it yet, but will keep an eye out for it now that I know Whacko Jacko's in it ;) SirFozzie 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah.  So he's an ambulance chaser..--Vercalos 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think if we're careful we can mention how he makes a living, though we obviously can't call him an "ambulance chaser" unless the article uses the phrase.  I think we can add a sentence somewhere.  And maybe just mention that he has a son? --Maxamegalon2000 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be acceptable to mention that he makes his living as a medical malpractice lawyer. 139.142.43.31 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So has anyone read the Rolling Stone article yet? 

message: Currently there's brief mention of his involvement with Howard Stern being taken off air in the 'Other Activities' secition. This might be slightly expanded upon (such as exact involvement, others involved, and details such as specific racist comments aired on the HS show that JT reported to the FCC), as well as mention of previous action taken against other shock jocks many years prior to that. That's some interesting background info.
Efrafra 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include another subhead for activism against shock jocks?

message: Please don't think I'm trying to root for JT in suggesting this. It just seems that the most interest taken in this article is by those who think he's evil/loony and thus has a lot of emotional investment. As Vercalos rightly implied, the Holocaust could invoke violent feelings in people, but the purpose of Wikipedia is supposed to be informative rather than affected by opinion, emotion, or agenda (even in "Controversy" sections).
Since this is a biographical entry, I wonder why there seem to actually be more [negative] quotes made about JT by others than specific details about the various litigations-- the latter of which would make sense to detail more in the light of how they affected courts and the connection with other cases. Not to say this is not a well-written article. While I did see a few quotes from JT himself, there isn't a lot of representation of 'the other side' of the story. Censorship makes everyone get fired up and while I'm definitely not in favor of censoring everything (and thus, the topic makes me antsy) I think that sometimes we get fired up before actually considering the details of a given litigation or the object of the complaint objectively-- perhaps we care more about blocking censorship than considering/examining the individual cases. I'm always amazed when I realize that I've made a hard judgement on something without actually knowing about it. In the same way that JT wasn't smart to denounce the [albeit WEIRD] Left Behind game without actually checking it out first hand, I wonder why I was so quick to think he should've left 2 Live Crew alone until actually stopping to actually objectively consider the lyrics my 11 year old male classmates were yelling at the girls. Just saying--there's more to the value of having this entry than for the reference of seriously annoyed gamers, although that's the most recent issue. JT may be over the top, but a more balanced entry will be of more use to the public. Efrafra 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if the article's unbalanced it is unbalanced FOR Thompson, not against. SirFozzie 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I'd say it generally makes him look like a fool in the subtlest way possible..  I don't think we have any sources on him doing a single decent thing(other than his video game litigation, which he obviously thinks is right).  In all honesty, I find it hard to believe that he's entirely without any redeeming qualities, so I have to wonder if he's ever helped someone without hurting others(IE charity, etc).--Vercalos 21:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I want to be optimistic about humanity, I have yet to see any sort of redeeming quality or act about Thompson. As for charity, he's not good at it. Feel free to find something and contradict me, though. -Ryanbomber 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, everything he has done to make himself notable enough to end up on Wikipedia has the side effect of making him sound like a raving lunatic.Adam613 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if it's true that the article may appear subtly biased, there has been a best effort to try to make the article neutral.  This is similar to the John C. Turmel article - you can still detect some bias in the article, if you know what to look for.  Likewise, you can still find some "positive" information, in the same way you can find positive information in this article.  The only difference is the quantity of sourceable stuff that can be found (although these two articles are currently held to different standards).  --Sigma 7 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article makes him look like an idiot because he IS an idiot. As neutral as you can be, you shouldn't distort the facts to make something more "neutral." We're just saying what he's done, we're not giving any opinions (except on Talk, I guess,) and it's up to the reader to decide what they want to decide. It's not our fault if everybody decides he's an idiot because he does stupid things. As much as I hate pulling a Godwin, Hitler's the best example of this. He's NOT a nice person. There's no real way to make him look nice, nor is there any reason to. The facts speak for themselves - we shouldn't have to sugar coat them. -Ryanbomber 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the quotes and details from the litigations can't be printed due to their coming from unverifiable sources, but their inclusion would actually make this entry seem MORE biased, because they illustrate even MORE how much a tool JT can be. From temper tantrum emails, to nearly getting himself arrested in court for acting like a 4-year old, to threatening everyone under the sun who says anything bad about him. Believe me, the contents of this article are the "nice" side of JT... Jabrwock 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Ryanbomber; you really can't emphasize positive qualities if there are none known or none to be had.  It's for reasons like Ryanbomber's and Jabs that I think the courtroom video belongs here, because it is an unbiased look at his true nature. 71.58.194.230 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include more quotes/info to provide greater balance? 

message: Why was Jack's photo removed?  Even if it was a copyrighted image, given that it was being used to illustrate, y'know, what he looks like, and for no other reason, wouldn't that fair CLEARLY under fair use? Fieari 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the fair use criteria prohibits non free images "just to show what a person looks like", because, you know, someone doesn't want people to be seen. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Who knows WHY you can't have photos of living people to show what they look like... Granted, I just skimmed the article, so if there's some way to get a photo of him up, it'd help until he whined enough to get it taken back down. -Ryanbomber 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: T, under pressure from cops, eyes way to kill vile ad Boston Herald, Nov 21, 2006
Jack Thompson, a Florida-based lawyer who battles violent video games across the country, said the MBTA is prohibited from promoting violent and sexually exploitative material. “It is utter nonsense for the MBTA to suggest the First Amendment somehow prohibits it from not participating in a criminal conspiracy,” Thompson wrote to Grabauskas yesterday. “What’s next? Bus ads for crack cocaine?” Jabrwock 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pbth. If this guy really believed that he would have been on the movie front from the minute "Pulp Fiction" was released. 203.131.167.26 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha! JT's a genius! I'm calling the bus company as soon as I get home from school! --Averross 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget Uncyclopedia, this stuff is hilarious.   129.21.109.90 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTA advertising a "criminal conspiracy"? 

message: I'm not entirely sure this could be used a source, so I'm not adding it myself. The April 7 entry mentions Jack Thompson stating his opinion on the lawsuit involving five girls who hung mario blocks around town. In my opinion, somebody more knowing should add this particular incident to the article. 69.130.136.214 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say we probably can't cite a personal website that's video game-related for this article for two reasons: It's a personal site, and the site is video game-related. --Maxamegalon2000 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quanz isn't a personal website, it's the home of Dinosaur Comics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  I only meant that as a primary source, the site is not usable as a source here.  If it were notable enough to be in the article, it would have been covered by secondary sources. --Maxamegalon2000 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what dumbasses. At least it gives me a new level to make for my Jack Thompson video game.--Averross 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario Blocks 

message: Anyone catch Nightline last night? The text article as well as the video is up.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2722827&page=1
KungFu-tse 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it, but i don't see how well it would relate to the article (almost everything in the video is already in here, i could be wrong). Still, it does provide us with more evidence of his inability to accept anything that hurts him "Studies have shown a decrease in crimes amongst teens", Jack's blatant reply: "That's not true". Prehaps it could be added somewhere into the article about his views on subjects? Inferny 05:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC News Nightline: "The Virtue Vigilante" 

message: Made slashdot and a lot of gaming sites, that Thompson sent a [Letter to Bill Gates] about Grand Theft Auto 4 (which apparently won't even be out until October 07), trying to get Microsoft to either MAKE Rockstar pull the title, or do.. something (I refuse to try to think like him, it'd make my head explode).. and requests that Microsoft's lawyers get in touch with him to help prevent GTA IV being sold to minors. Trying to find something about it from something that will pass the WP:RS bar that's been set for this article. That's probably why the article has been hit several times the last couple days, as the kids are riled up.  SirFozzie 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a waste of time not olny has he made threats like this to bill gates before and never followed hrough on them but also I read somewhere that Microsoft paid a HUGE sum of money to get GTA 4 released on the 360 at the same time as the PS3. 05:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love to see Thompson try and sue Microsoft; probably end up being counter sued for damages to Bills reputation... but I fear it'll never happened, and that loud-mouth fool will keep misleading, threatening, and gaining publicity for his "good works", i.e. being a moody bugger, unwilling to accept the facts, and braking his word. Sigh. - Doug 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... (Thompson vs GTA 4) 

message: Glancing over, the article looks good, and the things that made it fail last time don't seem to be an issue that we need to worry about now.  It needs a more thorough lead and could benefit from a picture, but otherwise it seems to be in good shape. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think it might be time to nominate it again. --Maxamegalon2000 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My only beef with it would be that it's pretty much perma-protected because of the constant vandals. -Ryanbomber 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for FAC again? 

message: I've always been unsure about using industry sources that quote Thompson directly.  While I certainly believe that they wouldn't misquote him, I still think that if it's the only source the content may not be as notable.  In the case of The Inquirer, I'm worried about the fact that, according to the Wikipedia article, "The INQUIRER's articles are written in a subjective and opinionated tone, with much the same style of reporting common in British tabloid newspapers." --Maxamegalon2000 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Why nobody added notice about a satyrical joke-game dedicated to mr. Thompson called "I'm ok"?
It should be added.
http://www.imokgame.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.23.207.129 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also noted on I'm O.K - A Murder Simulator, which was also recently prodded (but declined).    --Sigma 7 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm ok 

message: Could someone find a source for this: "Jack Thompson mistakenly said Microsoft was selling crack, when he heard about the Xbox 360 video game Crackdown, because he did not know it was a game. Ironically, Crackdown was designed by David Jones, who also designed the original Grand Theft Auto."—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan78 (talk • contribs) 
:Hmmm, are you sure it's sure? It sounds fake to me. --Averross 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thompson has made some dubious accusations in the past before but this sounds too redlicious to be true. --70.48.175.99 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crackdown

message: Could someone please confirm that the following statement:
Nevertheless, a command that could be entered into the in-game console in order to disable the blur effect was removed from the game in an expansion. No official reason was given for the change.
is in fact true. My sister (who owns the first three expansions) claims the command still exists (although was apparently changed to accept a parameter as the size of the blur effect (though by setting the size to zero the effect can be achieved)). 24.18.253.28 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does matter. It gives the impression that EA would cave in to baseless claims from Jack. 164.116.126.143 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification about Sims 2

message: I referenced this article in one of my rants: The Truth about Jack Thompson. If this line is changed at any time (other than vandalism), can someone email me (e-mail address removed) to let me know so I can make the necessary adjustments to my rant? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VoodooKobra (talk • contribs) 
:I doubt it.  It's also not good practice to post your e-mail address, lest it be spammed.  If you want you can assign the address to your profile under "my preferences".  Feel free to add the article to your watchlist, though, so you can see any changes made. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, good link. - Doug 21:42, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really possible.  You shouldn't ever count on any WP article being "fixed".  The content of a WP article may change at any moment, its veracity being more of an average over time than a single snapshot.  At any given moment it is loaded, this article might be nothing more than a misspelled sentence written by a vandal encouraging Mr. Thompson to perform an anatomically impossible act upon himself.  That's the drawback of WP's open editing system.  I don't recommend you rely on any specific verbiage found here:  the overall meaning may remain fairly consistent over time, but precise phrasing will frequently be altered.  Kasreyn 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you know