![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The talk page was getting long, so I archived it. Jabrwock 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Current discussions were:
Here is the "editorial" Thompson inserted into the middle of the article. We can use this as a reference list to double check the article, and there are a few items not present that are listed. Verification would be nice. Talk:Jack_Thompson/archive6#Thompson.27s_Edit
Update: since I wrote this comment, I went through and corrected the first two paragraphs, basically they had to be entirely re-written, I'd appricate you guys looking at this article in actual npov mode and fix some of it's inherent biaseness --- You guys are such hypocrites, this is the most news-speak article I've ever seen. You say you are all about fariness and accuracy, but you don't even allow the man to speak for himself. When he does speak for himself, you make it out to be vandalism and harrasment. You say he thought there was innacurcies "SO HE WAS A BAD BOY AND VANDALIZED" yet you don't go into any details of the quite accurate criticisms he had of the article, the only reason his edit is even mentioned at all is so you can libel and twist his words and actions more. Any attempt to put fairness into this article will just be reverted by the squad of biased Pixelantes. Anything he has done is swung and turned to make him out to be a villain, the good side is always ignored. Something needs to be done to make this article fair and the stop the squads of people that are obviously biased from editing the article (posted by 203.112.2.212)
Since we've agreed that this article is in need of a re-write due to an impression of bias, let's compile a list of sections that need re-writes, so they can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
First Paragraph Jack Thompson
Other than his birthdate, which according to Thompson is incorrect, are there any objections to the way the first paragraph is written? Short of mentioning that he has been married for 30 years and has a son, and of course the correct birthdate, I don't see anything that needs to be changed here. Should we take out the b-day until we can confirm the true date?
The_attourney over on gamepolitics posted a link to Mr. Thompson's correct birthdate. Or a means of finding it. You can find the reference here, as I am just figuring out Wiki I don't feel comfy editing the article. http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/213047.html?thread=15238711#t15238711
His political run Jack_Thompson#Political_run
I think it needs a re-write, as currently it implies that Thompson won the position, but was voted out. It should read that he won the nomination, but that he lost the election to the incumbent (Reno).
Other than that, I think his stint as "Man in Miami" deserves it's own section, as it doesn't directly relate to his political run, other than he used the position to write articles criticising Reno. Jabrwock 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we find any other articles he wrote as "Man in Miami"? Did he only criticise Reno or did he write about other political figures? Did he ever write an article about the closet lesbian accusation, or was that just an incident at a fundraiser? Why doesn't he write for NewsMax anymore? Jabrwock 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is link to his articles: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/7/70516 I think putting following this, when it's 12 years after the election is a tad bit strange, he did a ton of stuff inbetween the two.
Jack_Thompson#Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit
I don't think that second paragraph needs to be there. That's more under his "activism" section.
The linked article could probably use a style edit, but I don't think it needs much more than that. Jabrwock 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The "In spite of his various legal threats against video games (see activism, below), Thompson has only acted in an official role as a lawyer in a small number of video games-related cases. His notable cases are summarized below." is obvious OBVIOUS commentary and needs to be removed, I added essentialy the opposite commentary and put down "Thompson Has been an outspoken advocate of protection of minors from violent media. In Thompson's continuing pursuit of protecting children from violence and harmful influences, he has worked on countless cases including many notable ones below" a compromise between the two needs to be found 203.112.2.212 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Jack_Thompson#Strickland_vs._Sony
Any comments? I can see a few bits that need cleaning up, such as his email reference being messed up. And while the vaginal tube thing is funny, I don't think it's relevant to the case. Maybe move it down to "other"? Jabrwock 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should find a new source for the initial filing of the lawsuit. The ledger-inquirer link doens't exist anymore. Jabrwock 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
We've got an section related to his GamePolitics/LJ history. It'd be a fairly interesting thing to put in FReeper history (which is prevalent during the Elian saga in Florida).
http://web.archive.org/web/20010416002606/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39719ca95afa.htm
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/14/spankings-for-anti-game-crusader-jack-thompson/#c214092
-- Mazinger-Z 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I finally found an article that credits Thompson with the complaint that resulted in Stern's parent company (Clear Channel) being fined $495,000. Although Thompson can't claim credit for getting him "kicked off the air" because Howard Stern simply moved off Clear Channel networks and onto Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom) ones. A few months later he was back in the same markets, but broadcasting through Infinity. Infinity dropped him in Nov 2005 because he was advertising on air his move to satellite. That and before the complaint was filed, Stern had already signed his deal with Sirius, so he was moving off Clear Channel anyway. [2]
We could credit him with the fine, since it was his complaint that got the ball rolling. But not with getting him off the terrestrial airwaves, because that was going to happen anyway. Jabrwock 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This one is tricky. There is a policy against referring to Wikipedia WP:SELF, but Thompson did vandalise his own page. (Note I'm using wiki's definition of vandalism, namely that it's considered vandalism to edit one's own page, as well as inserting a page worth of unformatted, opinionated content...) Plus he did post on another site that the wiki was full of lies and he "corrected it" (even though he didn't, actually)
Is there any way we can mention that he did this without violating WP:SELF? Jabrwock 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been dealt with and the consensus suggests that it is noteworthy in the article. It avoids WP:SELF criteria because Wikipedia can be the only source of the information in question. The notable event happened to take place on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia logs are objective and verifiable.
See:
To be added when/if this article ever cools down.
Yeago 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
'Jack Thompson and Wikipedia'
On February 18, 2006, someone claiming to be Jack Thompson formed an account for Wikipedia and added information as well as editorial comment about Wikipedia posters to his own page in an attempt to counter what he saw as bias in the article, and inaccuracies such as his birthdate. [3] He was reminded that it is bad form to edit one's own wiki entry, and told to post corrections to the talk page. After his edit was removed as unencyclopedic, he insulted Wikipedia, atheists, and threatened to sue Wikipedia if it continued to display the "lies" on his page. He also claimed in the gamepolitics.com forum, as well as on his apparent Wikipedia account, that Wikipedia is his favourite fiction website. The comments on GamePolitics.com were confirmed by the site owner to have come from an IP Thompson regularly posts and emails from. [4] Yeago 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jack Thompson page is really messy and unorganized. I have a few suggestions-
-Try to make some of it more neutral.
-Make a seperate page for Flowers For Jack.
-Move anything possible from the Gamepolitics page to the JT page and vice versa.
-Move all of the sections about specific games together, and get rid of any unnecessary links.
I can do some of this stuff on my own, these are just a few suggestions.
Jabrwock 03:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I copied the Jack Thompson and Gamepolitics section onto the gamepolitics article a few days ago, but didn't think to take it off here, I had just did it as I didn't have all the information on his bans. Pixelanteninja 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is far too long, especially if we are going to add more information. Here is how I propose we split the article:
Mred64 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) ╫
I moved Strickland vs. Sony and "A Modest Proposal" to their own sub-articles. Eventually we'll probably need a TOC in each sub-article, so you can jump from sub-article to sub-article directly rather than having to go back up. Jabrwock 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In 2002 [5]
"Norwalk-like flu virus" besieging primarily the Disney Cruise Line may be the work of al-Qaeda affiliated bioterrorists. The prophet Muhammad was a pirate.
Jabrwock 17:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should be linked as it does show some relavance to Mr. Thompson's ability to take make assumptions with vaguely related facts. Actually even though they would make this article weighty links to his written articles give a better feel for Thompson than any write up people can give. -Toll
Flowers for Jack found info on his wife, a fellow Miami lawyer. According to Thompson, they've been married 30 ish years. She specilizes in commercial law. Interestingly, she's on the Florida Bar Grievance Committee "IIB"...
In the threats section it says that gamepolitics changed it's posting policy due to that law and his comments on the suicide of the gamer, it was found early on that it only really applied to e-mails, and Thompson was the only one who seemed to take it seriously. I think we should take this out as it seemed that the suicide comments were what really drove Dennis to change the policy but don't want to start an edit war. Thoughts, anyone? Pixelanteninja 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it a combination of things, but the suicide gamer comments Thompson posted were the last straw for Dennis. He wanted to be able to ban Thompson from posting, but he didn't realise that Thompson could just sign up for a new LJ account, which he did repeatedly. So now as long as he doesn't get out of hand, Dennis lets him post. But when he goes overboard with his insults, that account gets banned and he has to sign up for a new one. Jabrwock 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Which, I might add, is "ban evasion", and is against the LJ TOS, puishable by permanent IP banning from LG. l0gue and others have started their petition to urge LJ to take such action against Thompson. -- 216.161.72.96 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Dennis knew that he could sign up for an account as he said that he could just ban him if he did. Pixelanteninja 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What about Jack Thompson and Video Gamers or Response to Jack Thompson for another sub-article? I'm thinking it should include the Livejournal/GamePolitics, Correspondence, Response, Threats, and Metalgearsolid.org sections. It would really help to shorten this article. Mred64 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that was a dumb move, now we have how many other articles relating to Jack Thompson, just leave the letter there,it shows a lot about Jack's character. Father Time89
He just posted a letter to the "secret service" on gamepolitics.com [ [6]] in response to some flash game mocking the cheney hunting incident because you shoot at the image of George W. Bush (attached to a sheeps head, with laser eyes!) among others. Not sure if it's worthy stuff, or just his usual antics. SanderJK 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
ohn B. Thompson, Attorney at Law 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 305-666-4366
February 22, 2006
Robert D. Segall President, Alabama State Bar Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, PA Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Via Fax to 334-834-3172
Re: Jack Thompson v. Alabama State Bar
Dear Mr. Segall:
I wrote you sixteen days ago and asked you to call me back regarding the mishandling of a State Bar complaint against me which in fact was not even filed and yet with your Bar is “investigating” it in violation of its own Bar Rules.
Because you did not extend to me the courtesy of any kind of response, I have had to sue the Alabama State Bar today. I have also moved the court for mediation of the matter, in a spirit of professional cooperation which has been utterly lacking on the part of the State Bar.
It appears that the Alabama State Bar has an attitude that it need not descend from Olympus to talk with a lawyer from a border state. That’s fine. I like the people of the Alabama, and I look forward to spending more time there. I shall be addressing the Eagle Forum in Birmingham on March 31, and I’ll explain, from my perspective how the Alabama State Bar misunderstands its statutory function.
Your own Bar ballyhoos at its Internet site the benefits of conflict resolution short of litigation. I happen to agree with that approach. It’s unfortunate that you and the rest of the Bar machinery have made this litigation necessary by your refusal to communicate to try to resolve this matter amicably.
Sincerely, Jack Thompson
Copy: Judge James W. Moore, Fayette County Judicial Inquiry Commission Media http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/213925.html?thread=15262117#t15262117
I just reverted the latest changes made by an admin (forgot who he was) who said that he was putting the "sensible version". An encyclopedia is not about sensibility, it's about the facts. This is who the man is and as such it should stand! 66.231.253.100
Well, judging by the remarks left at Brookie's talk page ("I'm bored of this. A tedious article - good bye!") [11], it seems clear that this administrator is not interested in discussing or developing a consensus regarding their actions. I cannot judge whether this is an act of bad faith or not, or whether or not they're violating the "try to preserve information" portion of WP:Editing Policy (I don't believe that an article being "tedious" is a valid criteria for deleting verifiable information), but at the very least they're guilty of poor etiquette and are definitely committing a faux pas by ignoring and deleting concerns posted on their talk page.
As attempts at discussion have failed due to this user refusing to respond to or acknowledge our concerns, and at times outright hiding them from public view [12]; I believe the best solution (at least as a first step) is to seek informal mediation under WP:Resolving Disputes. I would not propose this if a regular Wikipedian had blanked the article, but I am concerned about future vandalism of this article by this user, as well as the potential for abuse of administrative power - it's hard to assume good faith when the admin in question pretends your concerns don't exist. What do other people here think about this course of action? Is this going too far? All I'd really like to gain from this is an assurance that this admin will not in the future decide to "prune" 90+ percent of this article and then pretend that it's not a problem. Everybody's thoughts would be appreciated. Nortelrye 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The response among recent contributors appears to be fairly good at this point, and so I intend to go forward with the remedies available under WP:Resolving Disputes. In the interest of maintaining civility and good faith, I will wait at least 48 hours after the time of my initial posting before commencing the dispute resolution process, in order to give Brookie more than ample time to respond. Perhaps they can overcome their being "bored of this" and do us the courtesy of addressing our various concerns. Nortelrye 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
After i cleaned up the new picture of JT of jpeg artifacts i got asked where the original image came from, i didnt know before but i now tracked it to this source:
http://www.gamepro.com/lofi/article.cfm?article_id=49525 Jernejl 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
24.70.24.114 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)isn't it better to use a more up to date picture?
It doesn't really matter, but we should probably include the age of the photo....-- Vercalos 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture doesn't need to be up to date (is George Washington's picture up to date?), but we should include when it was taken, if we know. Also, has anyone checked on the copyright of this picture? Wouldn't want to do anything to make Jack angry, now would we? -- Bakkster Man 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it makes more sense to use a current picture of him, since he is still alive, and he does have a current colour image available. Nobody is going to go changing George Bush's image to one of him 20 years ago. Once George is dead, the picture that represents him as once being president will be used, because it will be the most well known. Jack Thompson today is recognized by the grey-white hair, and newsroom, not by some 40 year old black and white photo of his younger days before his crusades. Bo916 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently edited the 'Miscellaneous cases' [13] portion of the article, in part to remove what appeared to be POV conjecture, and afterwards cleaned up the wording a bit. I noticed that the news story that was cited as a source [14] no longer appears on the website ("The requested article was not found."). I could not find another source to substitute. Should this section and the reference to the supporting news article be removed entirely? What does everybody else think? Nortelrye 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is cute. First Jack posts Dennis' unlisted, private phone number, claiming it's an office # so all's fair. Then he bitches at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and claims that Dennis' is misrepresenting himself as their employee. Apparently he did this once before, and the PP didn't do anything. Here's Dennis' explanation: [15] Then Thompson claims someone from the Pioneer Press called him to "thank" him for "exposing" Dennis. Jabrwock 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been ROTFLMAO all day on this one. Seriously this article and the wikiquotes section are studies in a man sinking into depravity. Anyways encyclopedic question: Anyone think the phrase "verbal diarreha of the keyboard" is too POV? Considering the sheer amount of "press releases", emails, spam, etc, etc. That Jack is capable of? No need to mention his poor editing, grammar, spelling, coherent sentences, they speak for themselves.-- 69.132.103.165 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Tollwutig... maybe one day I'll get a wiki account
I was actually asking if it was in this case. Can anyone think of a better way to describe the sheer volume Mr. Thompson puts out. Not only in quantity of letters, emails, etc, but in thier length. None of it really holding together. Just sheer volume. Considering this is a major trait, not only on gamepolitics, but looking through the wikiquotes everything he does, from articles, his websites, lawsuits, etc. A major trait should be described.. ok so maybe not verbal diarreha but something about his prolific writings should be mentioned. --Toll
"expresses great volubility when discussing his political stance." I like this one too. Toll
For reference, this is the first thread which indicates his Permanent ban.
[16] There's a bit of searching, but it was performed after there were abuse reports sent to LiveJournal. --
Sigma 7
17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Monicasdude is on a quest to remove all "non-notable" articles, so he spams {Prod} tags all over the place. Every sub-article has been tagged. I commented on the articles for deletion page. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_24#Strickland_vs._Sony Jabrwock 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake - Its better like this. Before the article was way too long, now its nice and clear, and you have further articles to go to for more indepth info IanC 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, seems all the pages that where "proposed for deletion" have survived IanC 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sometime soon I'm going to make a "Talk" subpage called "Research". Basically it will be a whiteboard so we can gather all the material into one long page, and organize it. This way we can keep track of various stories, and then we can pick out the important bits to summarize on the main wiki entry. This will allow us to condense the article, while still retaining the in-depth info for reference, instead of having to scour the web for the various links. This should deal with the "delete this fancruft" crowd, as it will make the article short & sweet, and we get to keep our indepth material intact so we have background info to work with. Jabrwock 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a vanity article to me. Isn't this article a bit long for a not particularly notable lawyer?
As an activist lawyer, he's definitely notable. -- Bakkster Man 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me in if cloud strife and evil clown can have an article longer then this then the length is fine. 203.112.2.212 19:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sudden violence arising from video game playing is being caused by a problem with human physiology related to the vision startle reflex.
In the 1960's designers, engineers, and psychologists accidentally found a 'conflict of physiology' when knowledge workers began to have mental breaks. This came to their attention because the victims were using the first prototypes of movable close-spaced workstations.
The problem was solved and the cubicle became the industry standard to stop the mental events.
The Redlake school shooter left a journal entry describing what he did to create exposure to Subliminal Distraction. Other shooters in prison have psychiatric symptoms, hearing voices, to indicate they had a mental event to precipitate the shooting.
The same phenomenon produced the Everquest Addiction episode of 2001/02 http://visionandpsychosis.net/Everquest_connection.htm
The same mental breaks happen on scientific expeditions and Russian space missions. One Russian killed another with a hatchet in an argument over a chess game. There have been fist fights over chess games on Russian space stations.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Astronauts_Insanity.htm
This phenomenon can be experienced with a simple psychology experiment. http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you_can_do.htm
L K Tucker 68.223.107.250 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
First time past the article in a few days, is the comment in the introduction about his son playing games rated E really necessary/POV? I couldn't imagine an encyclopedia saying that... Melander 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
From http://www.starttruth.com/articles/thompson/bono.php (removed - it can be read on the above provided link, no need for copying it down here)
I wonder who he'll write next? Bush?? Maluka 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see why he'd write this. Take Two should be the last company you'd ever want to purchase. I always find JT's writing style unique. Always starts so eloquent, until he starts bragging ("I was on 60 minutes, TWICE!!!") and insulting ("They're lying liars that got caught lying"). On the other hand, I agree with his logic, and if I had the balls I'd tell Bono we was making a mistake. Still dowsn't belong in the article, though. -- Bakkster Man 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My god! I must have been secretly trained for years by the Nintendo 64 with its evil Rumble Paks to become a mass murderer! I felt the thrill of the kill from blasting the leader in Diddy Kong Racing, and I felt the visceral jolt of joy of collecting honey combs in Banjo-Kazooie! Curse you rumbling controllers! Curse you Nintendo and everything you stand for! - MarphyBlack 13:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This article, without even counting the sub-pages, is significantly longer than Wikipedia's biographies of George Washington and Napoleon I of France, and practically the same length as those of Joseph Stalin and George W. Bush, just to pick some reasonably notable people more-or-less at random. Jack Thompson, by contrast, even if he is widely quoted, seems to be a relatively peripheral cultural figure. Why is this guy so important that we need a book-length narrative about him? -- Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Bush and his contemporaries are fairly restrained - they rarely make candid statements to the press. JT here just goes after anybody and even without concrete evidence - such is the case with The Sims 2, how he used a questionable source ot make the outragous claim that Sims 2 was a game for pedophiles. Also, the sheer number of people he has attacked - Amazon.com, GTA:SA< GTA:VC, The SIms 2, and so forth - have touched many gaming communities that are offended by his actions. - Hbdragon88 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What you're missing here is that Jack has one article on Wikipedia. GWB has many, many more. For example:
So, Jack T. clearly doesn't out-weigh GWB on Wikipedia -- Jack T. just has almost all of his information on one page. As such -- I don't think this article needs to be trimmed down. If anything, just move lager sections to their own article. - Quasipalm 20:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the panda magazine section, as all it amounts to is basically someone talking shit about someone else. Nothing notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Was there not an incedent related to his proposal that someone made a video game that kills video game developers? If i remember correctly, penny arcade donated 10,000 dollars in his name to a charity after Jack Thompson refused to pay? Im still looking for more information, but i remember hearing about this on Gamespot presents the hotspot. Can someone please help find anything about this incident and maybe propose it should be included into the article. Tommygun141 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened? Is this the result of legal action by JT, or possibly just administrative action on the page's length? Maybe the actions of a lone contributor? Anyone know? -- Bakkster Man 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont like what that message says.... IanC 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So in other words we don't get to know what this whole thing is about? -- Shaoken 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedia realizes that if they don't say why they locked the article then a large flame war will start, remember when the mod deleted every single video-game related thing from the article.-- Father Time89
When was this? But removing all video game references from Jack Thompon's article is like removing all religous references from the Pope -- Shaoken 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There are still many subpages on Jack Thompson still on wikipedia. Reub2000 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jack Thompson ordered Wikipedia to remove this article. It had numerous statements that were not true and defamed Mr. Thompson. He sent a copy of the letter to the press:
Dear Board Members of Wikipedia Foundation:
I contacted the Foundation at [removed], asking for your fax number, and the person who answered the phone refused to give it to me because I indicated this pertained to a legal matter. This arrogance helps explain some of your problems.
You have at your www.wikipedia.org a number of false, defamatory, and actionable statements about me. As an aside, you all don't even have my date and year of birth correct, and it goes downhill from there.
I am hereby demanding that you give me the real names, addresses, and phone numbers, and any other verifying information, regarding anyone who has posted anything about me at Wikipedia, as they will be defendants. You have thirty days to comply with this demand. The Seigenthaler experience shows that you must provide me this information.
Jack Thompson also mentioned that he tried to correct the false statements and foolish Wikipedians then removed the fixes and called it vandalism. Thompson has threatened legal action if Wikipedia does not comply, and says he suffered harm due to the fake information.
This situation is only going to get Wikipedia more criticism now. But at least the article was removed as Jack Thompson asked for
xSTRIKEx6864 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings all.
As a new member here, who has been a long time member of GP, I'm sure I"m gonna probably get alot of heat for what I'm about to say.
If wikipedia is actually submitting to Jack Thompson, then you should just dismantle the site entirely and call it quits. Jack Thompson has no case, no claim, and no real arguement. His actions are his own, regardless of if they are flattering or not, they have been documented, evidance of them was given, and it is his own words that damned him on this site. If he cannot accept that, he should not have acted as he did.
Wikipedia, as it's name implies, is supposed to be a an encyclopedia of information. Yet when I, at the time a non member, added some small updates to a few items, even including links to proof of my statments, they were deleted. Why? Cause they proved JT was lieing? So when hard fact does not agree with a person you remove it.
Jack Thompson's Article should be restored to it's former self asap. It doesn't matter if he likes what it says or not, it's his own words, actions, and deeds. They have been documented and validated. If Wikipedia is not going to do what it's meant to do, be a repository for truthful, informative data, then why does it even exsist. I'm sure theres plenty of others who might not like what is listed on there Wikipedia page, but if what is there is true, as it was with Thompson, then there is no reason for it to be changed.
If you was not willing to stand by wikipedia, and those who did all the work needed to form the article in question, what purpose does this site serve?
Sorry for the rant, but it sickens me that Wikipedia would actually listen to a man whose been shown to be a racist, a liar, a bigot, and more, let alone bow down to his pointless and empty threats.
Yukimura.
The article now fails even the most basic requirements we have on Wikipedia.
Often cited? We never use those words without a citation, since they are useless otherwise, as useless as the supposedly libelous material that was here before. So that line should be removed, which gives us:
Which is an obvious speedy candidate as it fails to establish notability.
By the way, I find it deplorable (if the press release a few pages up is true) that the Office is seriously responding to a request that includes a demand for names, phone numbers, and other identifying information, so that they may be prosecuted. I would say this outlandish demand negates the veracity of the blanking request. Requests should only be considered when they make sense. But I suppose the legal threats ban doesn't apply when they're sent specifically to Danny. -- Golbez 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
An article about Jack Thompson will be created. It will, I hope, be a very thorough article. It will also be properly and fully cited. This is a temporary measure. Danny 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A lot of gonad swinging around here. How many of you run your own websites? I'd rather have Wiki minus one article on some psycho pundit than no Wiki at all. This isn't a game of who blinks first contrary to what the Internet would make you believe. Danny Lilithborne 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As an Impartial viewer of this site, I have to say to remove this article or modify it in any way is no more different than changing history- say removing any reference to the World Trade Tower because it offends someone. History is not supposed to be biased on account of if someone agrees with it or not, Wikipedia has always stood for neutrality. If you remove this article, you act as the individual or events never existed; to me if you choose to bastardize information on that scale, you may as well remove references to the holocost because people debate the truth of that as well. 165.166.180.188 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
So what exactly did Wikipedia Violate? If he's whiny about his bio and how its written, he should go ahead and make his own auto-biography if he wants. I dont think you guys violated any guidelines as far as I'm concerned, and as long as this is based on an American Attorney, the same freedoms that are placed in the constitution should be exercised here. Thats pretty much my 2 cents. User:mothman47 00:38, 13 March 2006
There are two things I find kind of disturbing here. One is the building of accusations upon assumptions. Some people seem to assume that the Foundation received this letter and immediately protected the article. That is false. There were several steps in between these two processes, as the comment by BradPatrick above would indicate. The second is that the Foundation, which would be the defendant if Mr Thompson chose to sue us (and he has not), would then be obliged to post all of its legal strategies on this page for discussion and debate by various Wikipedians. The Foundation does not know all of the people who commented here. Do you really think it is wise to discuss all the details of what is happening in such an open forum? That is the second thing I find disturbing. Assume some good faith, particularly in the people such as Jimbo who make this website possible.
Having said all that, I would invite Wikipedians to begin to reconstruct the article by offering suggestions as to how a more fuller survey of Jack Thompson's life and career can be covered in a neutral and fully sourced way. Thompson contended that even his date of birth was wrong. Then let's rebuild the article so that every single fact is correct and sourced. As David Gerard said above, there is no reason why this should not be a candidate for featured article. Danny 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is a bit of a rant, but I want to add this here. We have really got to cope with this sort of thing better as a community - for the good of the project as a whole. We get a complaint, it goes through various stages (I'm one of them as someone who answers our email, when it gets beyond me I pass it to people like Danny and BradP). At one or another of those stages the article might get temporarily blanked, or protected, or deleted... and then the row starts.
But I think it's important to say that none of these interventions are done lightly. Don't you think that everyone involved has the same ideals of free and open knowledge? Why else would they be here? We are all Wikipedians. But there are also the practicalities. It's better to have one article temporarily in a stubby state, or even permanently so, than the project as a whole to be in trouble. And frequently the community as a whole can't be told all the details. Because to make them public would inflame and escalate the situation that they are trying to fix in the first place.
I get to hear quite a few bits of what's going on, because of the work I do. But there is a whole lot I don't hear, and that's as it has to be. If Danny or Brad told me to take action on an article, but said that they couldn't tell me why, then I would likely do it. Not through some sort of blind obedience, but because I trust them, and trust that they have the good of Wikipedia firmly in their sights. If that isn't the way the community as a whole reacts to this sort of problem, then we are going to end up in real trouble some day. -- sannse (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to add my own semi-rant to sannse's; I'm in the same boat she is as someone who wades through the mail desk. If anything Jimbo and Danny have more stake in the project than any one of the rest of us. It is neither to their interest nor anyone else's to damage an article or to abandon the openness of Wikipedia. And I can speak with absolute confidence that for every WP:OFFICE protection, there are loads upon loads of "sorry you're unhappy with this article, can you tell us what's incorrect to help us fix it?" mails that no one gets much bothered about and most of the community never hears about. Sometimes they are very angry, sometimes they are from wealthy and powerful people, and we don't get too fussed about them until there is a serious concern that we may be doing wrong, and something needs to change, and that something hasn't happened via the usual community processes. That's what office actions are for.
Do you have any idea how big Wikipedia is and how much attention it gets? This isn't Joe Schmoe's website that no one will ever see; publishing here is like publishing in the 'New York Times. Except that we're on the web and searchable without registration. There is actually serious damage to be done by having falsehood and rumors up on articles, and if our community processes have failed to get that right then it's clear some intervention is needed. It's done to save the project, not to destroy it, and I imagine that Danny would rather chew his own toenails off than face this sort of shitstorm without good cause.
Now, everyone who does have good, verifiable, neutral, cited information to add, go work on writing temp versions so we can replace this accursed thing. Complaining on the talk page doesn't help do that, but researching does. Without whitewashing, without censoring, with the whole neutral and verifiable truth, and only that, and if it meets those standards it'll be back up no matter what Thompson thinks of it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As someone who also sometimes fields the emails that Mediawiki gets, I add my sentiments to those of Sannse and Mindspillage. We are volunteers. Let anybody who is concerned that there may be some kind of weird cabal at work, consider in his own mind whether he's prepared to take on some voluntary work on OTRS, out ticketing system. Any good faith applications to join will I'm sure be happily dealt with by Danny or Kat (Mindspillage). On conditions of confidentiality, you will then get to deal with everyday complaints from readers and editors, and this may give you a clear picture of the kind of day-to-day complaint that Wikipedia deals with.
I wish everybody here who, in good faith, believes that the Foundation is being dictatorial or underhand, or is doing things in a hidden way, would join OTRS and contribute to the work Wikipedia has to do, day in, day out, to keep itself in touch with its customers--and I make no apology for using that word, the public are our customers and the public's money and the public's choice have made this the number one reference site in the world. Let us keep in touch with our customers and our best editors. The editors can accomplish this at any time by doing their duty as OTRS volunteers. -- Tony Sidaway 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's my proposition for rebuilding the article (in a way to prevent problems from happening in the future). First of all, if you feel strongly about Jack's views, please refrain from editing the article directly. Feel free to participate in the talk page discussion and research, but if you feel you might make a POV statement, let someone else do it.
Secondly, everyone should read the WP:LIVING guidelines on editing biographies of living people. I have a feeling that if we had followed them more closely, this never would have happened.
Third, we use whiteboard page here to organize our research and fully cite our sources. Even as few as two days ago I was still trying to find sources to add to uncited sections.
Thoughts/ideas/additions? Hopefully using a thorough process we can rebuild the page better than it was before. -- Bakkster Man 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
For someone who is new to using/posting on Wiki, would actually using direct quotes of the man in question be considered POV, even if they can be backed up with actual evidence? Mr.Pat 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is always going to be a problem as long as Thompson continues to advance his views on video games. I have a neutral position to the whole affair, but there are some people who take video games waaay too seriously, and the majority of them spend a lot of time on the Internet. If we're going to try to create an article that won't ultimately cross the legal boundaries of libel (again), this problem has to be addressed. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the date of birth though, how was the page exactly libel? I researched the situation and every single one of his quotes are exact, as were his various letters. Mr.Pat 00:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not it was libel according to the current laws; Wikipedia is a virtual gold mine for ambitious civil attorneys to try and make new law. The dictionary definition of libel would give one plenty of cause to, at the very least, waste a lot of the website administrators' time and money, and that alone is enough reason to give pause. Danny Lilithborne 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that Thompson claimed that the article was libelous and actionable --- of course, the truth is, it wasn't. I'm so beyond frustrated by now. The man, even more so than Michael Moore or even Ann Coulter, is duplicitous and pathological. Other blowhards from every inch of the spectrum at least sincerely believe what they're saying or, when they screw up, at least shut up and stop propagating it. Some people, though, like Jack, don't. And what's scary is that we're now giving in to his pathological, demented need for attention. Wikipedia is dead to me. If only I had the resources, I would threaten to sue Wikimedia every day, make thousands of vexatious law suits, just to punish them for giving in to this one. Hopefully the server farm will burn to the ground and purge this stupidity once and for all.
This incident, and the reaction by the WP:OFFICE staff really made me pause and give newfound credence to the Five Wikipedia Predictions by Jason Scott (see prediction #4). The board really needs to come up with some proactive solutions to these problems now before they wind up alienating the entire editing community. Silensor 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of if this article was slanted or not, Libel only applies if you have verifiable proof that a statement was wrong and or defamatory. In the case of Mr. Thompsons article, this was not only not the case, but it was also probably the most cited article that wikipedia had seen. At it's highest point, the article had over 100 cited sources, though admittedly, many of them were from Jack Thompsons postings on Game Politics, it was confirmed by that sites owner, that it was indeed Jack Thompson making those statements.
Now, due to recent changes to the Live Journal system, most notably Thompsons permant banning from Game Politics, some of this citations are no longer valid. It would however be important to not that many of them are still housed by Wikiquote, and thus are still verified and located on in an easily linkable area. My concern is not that the article will altered, but that those statements made by JT, which were verified, be left intact. Jack is doing this not cause of libel, but cause he does not want the truth about his actions to be seen by the public. If wikipedia allows him to bully them into silence, there allowing him to hide the truth from the public, a far worse crime then Libel, in my opinion. ( YukimuraSanada 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
How so mike? IANAL, but I have family that is involved in the court system, and I asked around. Libel normally requires three things.
1. Falsified statments. not the case here, since these were his own statments in most cases. 2. Monitary Harm::jack hasn't won a case in years, no harm there. 3. Damage to reputation.: Need to have one to damage to begin with.
However, as I said, IANAL, so if you have some details and clarification ,I'm happy to hear it. Unlike Jack ,I"m man enough to admit when I might be wrong. ( YukimuraSanada 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
I am trying to keep faith in the office, but having seen jacks actions in the past, I'm not so much upset about his threats as I am about wikipedia actually buying into them. He's made threats against multiple groups and people no less then a dozen times as seen on your own acticle, and never followed threw. The fact that you actually listened to him will just fuel his insanity and make him even more determined to attack you.
If you'd ignored him, he's have gone away.
Oh, why, wikipedia, why? Cowardice.
User:Mightfox
I second that. User:mothman47
I'm more upset that wiki office pulled the article then Jack Thompson threatening to sue. He does the latter all the time, while the former is a form of censorship and thus always scary. Wiki shows the Danish cartoons, but not the well researched (How many offsite links, 150?) actions of a very controversial lawyer, based on a single email? SanderJK 13:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to adding his birthdate or would that be too controversial an addition? I mean we're here to provide information, not protect ourselves from lawsuits. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with blanking pages when people threaten to sue Wikipedia over its content is:
This is an awful idea. The article should be restored immediately. - Quasipalm 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! Restore the article! Shane 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, restore the article. People need to stand up to Jack Thompson. Scott Ramsoomair, Tycho and Gabe have all stood up to him and he crawled away, nothing says the Wikipedia can't do the same either. SavannahLion 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
have nothing good to say about this man and I have never seen this man say anything good about the gaming industry. SavannahLion 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
For crying out loud, RESTORE the page. Has he threatened to sue? Is the letter going to be on GamePolitics?? This looks so bad for Wikipedia. Maluka 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Biological Age: 15". That makes you an expert on real life?? I'm chewing my cheeks. This is real bad and checking around the net, I've found more things critical of Wikipedia than Jack. I can't believe Wikipedia bent over and took it like they did. Cowards! Maluka 08:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Let it be folks. Danny is right. No matter how unstable or insane he may be, there is no denying that jack is still a lawyer, and that means he must have some understanding of law, though admittedly, it's been shown in the past that it is sketcy and sometimes completely incorrect.
I say, let danny and the office look into this. The best thing we can do is offer support and catalog as much verifiable info about Thompson as we can for them. Then when he have enough of it, and if he ever does get the balls to take wiki to court, we will have him dead to rights and wiki can counter sue and put him away for good.
I"m not happy about this, but I'm gonna support wiki on this, they were a gold mine to me during school, and I'll stick by them. That being said, I'm upset that they even listened to the man, but there right, he's still a lawyer, and so we should at least take him a little serious. ( YukimuraSanada 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
The original article isn't even gone, anyway. I wonder if Jack knows this. Crystallina 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my second intrusion, but it sould be noted that John Bruce Thompson has already gone to GP and posted under a new identity (and apparently a new IP address). Why is this significant? Because in one of his latest rantings, he, in a way, is bragging about a victory over Wikipedia's blanking of his article. At least that is the tone I am getting from his posts. But then, that's the usual tone from his posts, even when there is no clear victory. I'm new to adding my comments here, so I won't post the direct link. But he is using ID murdersims under the 10Mar2006 article Justice Files. In one of the articles, he lists what GP supposedly did not cover. Wikipedia is number 5 in the list. I don't know how Office feels regarding such acts, but thought they, and the rest, should know. I kept a copy of the post in case GP decides to delete it. Thank you for your attention. Andrew Rhodes 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's good to know that all it'll take is the threat of legal action to shut Wikipedia pages down. You may as well take the rest of the site down, as this will simply snowball on other controversial issues.
The reason very little posisitive is avalible about Jack is cause he's done nearly nothing posistive in years. He's a censor, a man who wants to take away rights from others. I hardly think thats a posistive stance to take in a country that prides itself on the ideals of freedom. Jack May not like what his article said, but only because it showed him to be the hatemongering, communist style lunatic he was. If he wasn't acting that way, then why were there over 140 cited sources showing those exact actions, showing rampant hypocracy, showing lies and deciet and a near endless cavalcade of Bullshit. Sorry, but the fact is, jack didn't like the article cause it showed him to be what he really is, a facist style self serving parastie. If he didn't behave like one, we wouldn't have all the evidance we do on him. ( YukimuraSanada 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
Many things are controversial for many issues. Among the things you wouldn't expect, there is a constant debate on the Einstein page wether he invented relativity or not. By the very nature of wikipedia a lot of it's content will always be disputed. Are we removing all entries with a talk page that has a serious discussion on it? And a censored enclopedia is no encyclopedia at all. SanderJK 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to come and ask the current article maintainers what JT was up to since his banning at GamePolitics (which kind of killed the party over there), but it looks like you guys have got that covered - and then some. Jack Thompson x Wikidrama = comedy gold/worrying reminder that the internet is serious business.
PS for Maluka: A/S/L? 24.20.237.11 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hes back on GP, as "murdersims"
Anyone who thinks this article was biased against him go and look at what he posted here as murdersims IanC 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, he is a parody of himself. The article should be restored immediately Sonic Hog
Jack never mentions exactly what is unture about the article other then his birthday (which isn't that big of a deal unless the year is off by a lot) even though it was deleted. Jack Thompson doesn't want people to know about his actions. Well too bad for him, Jack dug his own grave and he still continues to dig it although not as much as before, it reminds me of a joke I heard, why are lawyers alway buried 6 feet deep? Because deep down lawyers are OK. Anyway sorry Jack but you got yourself into this, you shouldn't have made fun of the suicide of the metal gear gamer, you shouldn't have called the flowers harrasment, and you shouldn't have compared gamers to hitler's youth. I also hope you realise that this article blanking is by no means permanent. Father Time89
I need to add my 2 cents here. I am sick how this is turning out. If Jack Thompson can shut down a wiki article about him, what is next? We already know he gave a cryptic threat to GamePolitics saying he is next. Whats next? Bringing down a site because they have a forum? This guy thinks he can shut down sites which allow users unrestricted free speech. Now Wikipedia has a very big problem. It is like terrorism, if you give in once, they will know they can continue to get their way. Jack Thompson is proving himself to be a Litigation Terrorist: Threaten lawsuits to anyone he disagrees with, and hope he can scare them. It has been said before, and I'm sure it will be said again, but now, whenever someone wants to change their listing, all they have to do is threaten litigation, and they know Wikipedia will cave. I am willing to bet it is just a matter of time before you get your next letter. Add to that the loss of respect from the Internet community you have taken. One thing we hate: censorship.
Why does the article need to be blanked and protected because of a legal threat? Why not just identify what in the article is problematic and then we can concentrate our efforts on that? There may be a good reason for doing it this way, I just don't know what it is. Everyking 12:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I come back here after finally replacing a fried motherboard, and this is what I see... After taking a look at all the comments, I've concluded that this situation really isn't as bad as some people posting here seem to think it is. Wikipedia has not nuked the article, they've not banned anybody contributing to it, they're not horribly censoring *anything*. Regardless of the individual making the threats (and his obvious lack of sanity), legal threats were still made, and they have to be dealt with as such. Wikipedia, in what clearly appears to be a gesture of good faith, has removed the disputed content until they figure out how they wish to proceed in this matter. The data isn't gone forever (yet), and as far as I know, no names or IP addresses have been given up to JT. Wikipedia is simply exercising caution in dealing with a potential lawsuit, and I would be disappointed in them if they didn't do such things. I've not seen them capitulate in the face of legal threats [20] from other net-kooks, and I don't expect that they will do so in this situation. If JT actually does sue them in this case, I will definitely be chipping into a legal fund, and I hope to see the same from other GP readers.
However, I believe that like all of Thompson's other legal threats, this one will go nowhere, and I look forward to seeing the content restored; because while it may be in dire need of POV and bias adjustments, it's still the truth about his actions. In the meantime, hurling insults at Wikipedia and personal attacks at some of its members (no matter how creepy some might find their profiles) and trying to sneak around the lock on this page is NOT GOING TO HELP. If you really care about Wikipedia and its mission, you'll let them handle it according to their policies. But please, please stop trying to undermine what they're doing by creating pages like 'Jack Thompson (lawyer)' to get around the lock. Nortelrye 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require users to input real names, phone numbers, addresses etc., and I doubt would give out such information without dire need to do so, which this case clearly lacks. Another short comment - most people with such radical ideas will be ignored by the majority of society, and in general needn't be defamed; they shall bring it upon themselves. brabblebrex 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
If they do get sued, I to will contribuate to the legal fund to help, and I'm sure I could get a number of GP readers to join in, but to be honest, last night an Idea came to me. Perhaps what the foundation needds isn't to fight this battle alone. IT needs to contact one of JT's biggest enemies, The Law firm blank rome. They are currently collecting as much evidance one JT as possible. Giving them this info would be alot of help in getting his ass disbarred. Just a thought. (
YukimuraSanada
23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
Apparantly Jack has returned to posting on Game Politics and this is what he has to say on what happened to his Wikipedia article: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/227903.html?thread=16493631#t16493631
Specifically, this quote:
What? Is this for real? Jack Thompson is acting like this is a legal victory for him, and quite honestly, it's looking like it may truly be one for him unless the article is reinstated. What "falsity" was there ever? The only real disputed fact that ever occured was his birth date; something Jack himself wouldn't reveal or correct. By removing the article, Wikipedia is basically supporting Jack's claim that the article was pulled because it was false since it was Jack that made the original legal complaint over it.
I understand the moderators of Wikipedia are acting in good faith in light of Jack Thompson's request, but what I don't think they realize is that it is unlikely he will ever be satisfied with an article about him. As pointed out before, almost everything in the article was based entirely on fact. These were his actions and his words. The most anybody could really complain about was some (I stress some) lack of citation and a few somewhat POV-ish statements here and there. However, it's ridiculously absurd to think that the article was entirely false or libelous in any way that would constitute an entire removal.
I agree that this situation is somewhat overblown, but now we have Jack Thompson absolutely gloating his supposed victory over gamers and Wikipedia. This is not the kind of person whose wishes should be respected since he clearly only wanted the article removed with the intent of being able to mock his detractors over it. He doesn't care one bit about validity or a neutral point of view or necessary citations. He's just a guy acting with malicious intent. - MarphyBlack 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. I understand why Wiki did what they did... they don't want to get sued. It makes sense. But I don't see the point of even restoring the article. Wiki backed down when Jack threatened a lawsuit (sorry, I can't find a better way to say that right now. I don't blame wiki for their actions, though). When the article is back up, even if every other word is cited (and I'm sure it could be, he's everywhere now), he's going to complain. Why? He can't edit his own article, that's not encyclopedic. The stuff that goes on the wiki is the stuff that he does... which shows him negatively. If we put what he does on his wiki, it's going to reflect negatively on him. He'll try to edit it, get stopped again, and threaten to sue all over again, because it worked this time. IANAL (nor would I profess to know more than .5% of anything legal), but I wouldn't waste the time putting up the wiki again unless you get it in writing that he's not going to threaten to sue every 30 days. It could be my pessimism talking, but why even bother? 24.176.26.37 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)psyco_chick32
I don't understand exactly why Wiki would pull it. On the bottom of every page there is link disclaimers and when you click it, in bold and large font, is WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. If Mr. Thompson found so many glaring errors in his article, he could've discussed each one, or fixed it himself. Instead he chose to ignore all of them except his birthdate (and what libel that is!), and add a media blurp about how great he is, citing only his victories and non of his losses, several religious references etcet. He violated several rules by doing so and it got removed. Now i understand that noone likes to get sued, but if you pull articles based on threats alone, you are boldening censors and weakening yourself. I'm sad that the article got pulled, and Jack Thompson is going around the web screaming this as a victory, and that alone makes it clear to me that this was not the smart move. SanderJK 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about his to the Jack_Thompson article. The only way he would accept it is to allow him to edit it and have WikiAdmins perma-lock it. -- Xabora 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone clarify me on this, from my understanding if Wiki got an e-mail from some guy saying he's going to sue if they don't take down the article on evolution would they do it. I highly doubt it because said guy would have no legal backing whatsoever Jack Thompson MIGHT have some kind of legal backing and until the might becomes a definite "doesn't" the article will remain locked, however the good news is that Jack put on a 30 day timer so if Jack doesn't try to cooperate with wiki within 30 days they can probably return the article in it's glouroius original form (and of course add another new section on this fiasco). So be patient I am confident wiki knows what it's doing.Father Time89
Would anyone object to Category:Lawyers? Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose we add a see also: to the temporary page. Since the other articles related to Jack's actions are not under scrutiny, they can most likely be linked to. James v. Meow Media, Strickland v. Sony, Jack Thompson and video game players, A Modest Video Game Proposal, Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders, Flowers for Jack. I wouldn't reccomend adding the JT and gamers until this blows over, but what does everyone think? Danny, can we get authorization for this? -- Bakkster Man 16:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Jacky is quoted in it.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14084718.htm
Ladies and Gents, please, be calm. Mr. Thompson's standard Modus Operandi is to use his standing as a lawyer to threaten legal action against, well, everyone. While most people who have followed Mr. Thompson's career are well aware that these are the threats of a paper tiger, Wikipedia has to take every such legal threat seriously.
What is going to happen right now is that the fact checkers at Wikipedia are going to go through the Jack Thompson article, verify some of the more outrageous claims (which, dispite Jack's desperate lies to the contrary, are easily verifyable), and restore the article after fixing some of the wording to make it more NPOV. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the article came back bigger and more detailed than before.
If you wish to help, please bring forth any verifyable sources about some of the more "interesting" anticdotes that follow Jack Thompson's interesting history. For example: Citing his much publisized episode with the VGCats.com artist (wherein he sent a random email to Scott, then, when Scott replied, Jack called him repeated names, slandered him, and then threatened to sue him for harrassment when he replied) [21], or citing a verifyable reference for his infamous "Janet Reno Lesbian Note" debacle during the legendary debate. [22]
Dispite what people like Mr. Thompson would like you to believe, he is a public figure, and subject to public scrutiny. And, in addition, he can claim that Wikipedia contains falsehoods, but if they come from verifyable sources, and indeed, given his extensive history of online communications, I do believe most of the outlandish claims are actually true and verifyable, I fear Mr. Thompson will be woefully dissapointed when the new, NPOV Jack Thompson article is unveiled.
Sources Cited:
KiTA 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is actually being done here? What is the next stage in the process of getting this back to normal, or an editable state? Is there a next stage? If so, is anyone working on it? Everyking 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article will be back up soon, and it was just brought down temporarily while Wikipedia consults the legal matters of this issue and possibly do a verification/clean up of this article. Remember that encyclopedias are about facts, and most if not all that is mentioned here about this man is fact and is backed-up by proof. Should it be deleted just because now, when he looks at them put together, he finds them embarrasing and inconvenient? I don't think so, and I'm betting The Wikipedia Foundation feels the same. As for the threats agains the Wikipedia contributors, if Mr. Thompson hadn't been absent the day they taught law at law school, he would know that for a site/corporation or entity to release private information of it's users/contributors, etc... He needs a subpeona. Anyone remember the RIAA and their subpoenas to people using file sharing services? Same applies. I'm certain Wikipedia knows about this and would not let itself be bullied by a lawyer making an empty threat with blanket accusations and no proof or following due process, so the locking of this article must be just a precautionary meassure.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The talk page was getting long, so I archived it. Jabrwock 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Current discussions were:
Here is the "editorial" Thompson inserted into the middle of the article. We can use this as a reference list to double check the article, and there are a few items not present that are listed. Verification would be nice. Talk:Jack_Thompson/archive6#Thompson.27s_Edit
Update: since I wrote this comment, I went through and corrected the first two paragraphs, basically they had to be entirely re-written, I'd appricate you guys looking at this article in actual npov mode and fix some of it's inherent biaseness --- You guys are such hypocrites, this is the most news-speak article I've ever seen. You say you are all about fariness and accuracy, but you don't even allow the man to speak for himself. When he does speak for himself, you make it out to be vandalism and harrasment. You say he thought there was innacurcies "SO HE WAS A BAD BOY AND VANDALIZED" yet you don't go into any details of the quite accurate criticisms he had of the article, the only reason his edit is even mentioned at all is so you can libel and twist his words and actions more. Any attempt to put fairness into this article will just be reverted by the squad of biased Pixelantes. Anything he has done is swung and turned to make him out to be a villain, the good side is always ignored. Something needs to be done to make this article fair and the stop the squads of people that are obviously biased from editing the article (posted by 203.112.2.212)
Since we've agreed that this article is in need of a re-write due to an impression of bias, let's compile a list of sections that need re-writes, so they can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
First Paragraph Jack Thompson
Other than his birthdate, which according to Thompson is incorrect, are there any objections to the way the first paragraph is written? Short of mentioning that he has been married for 30 years and has a son, and of course the correct birthdate, I don't see anything that needs to be changed here. Should we take out the b-day until we can confirm the true date?
The_attourney over on gamepolitics posted a link to Mr. Thompson's correct birthdate. Or a means of finding it. You can find the reference here, as I am just figuring out Wiki I don't feel comfy editing the article. http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/213047.html?thread=15238711#t15238711
His political run Jack_Thompson#Political_run
I think it needs a re-write, as currently it implies that Thompson won the position, but was voted out. It should read that he won the nomination, but that he lost the election to the incumbent (Reno).
Other than that, I think his stint as "Man in Miami" deserves it's own section, as it doesn't directly relate to his political run, other than he used the position to write articles criticising Reno. Jabrwock 18:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we find any other articles he wrote as "Man in Miami"? Did he only criticise Reno or did he write about other political figures? Did he ever write an article about the closet lesbian accusation, or was that just an incident at a fundraiser? Why doesn't he write for NewsMax anymore? Jabrwock 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is link to his articles: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/7/70516 I think putting following this, when it's 12 years after the election is a tad bit strange, he did a ton of stuff inbetween the two.
Jack_Thompson#Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit Paducah_schoolhouse_shootings_class_action_suit
I don't think that second paragraph needs to be there. That's more under his "activism" section.
The linked article could probably use a style edit, but I don't think it needs much more than that. Jabrwock 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The "In spite of his various legal threats against video games (see activism, below), Thompson has only acted in an official role as a lawyer in a small number of video games-related cases. His notable cases are summarized below." is obvious OBVIOUS commentary and needs to be removed, I added essentialy the opposite commentary and put down "Thompson Has been an outspoken advocate of protection of minors from violent media. In Thompson's continuing pursuit of protecting children from violence and harmful influences, he has worked on countless cases including many notable ones below" a compromise between the two needs to be found 203.112.2.212 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Jack_Thompson#Strickland_vs._Sony
Any comments? I can see a few bits that need cleaning up, such as his email reference being messed up. And while the vaginal tube thing is funny, I don't think it's relevant to the case. Maybe move it down to "other"? Jabrwock 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should find a new source for the initial filing of the lawsuit. The ledger-inquirer link doens't exist anymore. Jabrwock 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
We've got an section related to his GamePolitics/LJ history. It'd be a fairly interesting thing to put in FReeper history (which is prevalent during the Elian saga in Florida).
http://web.archive.org/web/20010416002606/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39719ca95afa.htm
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/14/spankings-for-anti-game-crusader-jack-thompson/#c214092
-- Mazinger-Z 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I finally found an article that credits Thompson with the complaint that resulted in Stern's parent company (Clear Channel) being fined $495,000. Although Thompson can't claim credit for getting him "kicked off the air" because Howard Stern simply moved off Clear Channel networks and onto Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom) ones. A few months later he was back in the same markets, but broadcasting through Infinity. Infinity dropped him in Nov 2005 because he was advertising on air his move to satellite. That and before the complaint was filed, Stern had already signed his deal with Sirius, so he was moving off Clear Channel anyway. [2]
We could credit him with the fine, since it was his complaint that got the ball rolling. But not with getting him off the terrestrial airwaves, because that was going to happen anyway. Jabrwock 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This one is tricky. There is a policy against referring to Wikipedia WP:SELF, but Thompson did vandalise his own page. (Note I'm using wiki's definition of vandalism, namely that it's considered vandalism to edit one's own page, as well as inserting a page worth of unformatted, opinionated content...) Plus he did post on another site that the wiki was full of lies and he "corrected it" (even though he didn't, actually)
Is there any way we can mention that he did this without violating WP:SELF? Jabrwock 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This has been dealt with and the consensus suggests that it is noteworthy in the article. It avoids WP:SELF criteria because Wikipedia can be the only source of the information in question. The notable event happened to take place on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia logs are objective and verifiable.
See:
To be added when/if this article ever cools down.
Yeago 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
'Jack Thompson and Wikipedia'
On February 18, 2006, someone claiming to be Jack Thompson formed an account for Wikipedia and added information as well as editorial comment about Wikipedia posters to his own page in an attempt to counter what he saw as bias in the article, and inaccuracies such as his birthdate. [3] He was reminded that it is bad form to edit one's own wiki entry, and told to post corrections to the talk page. After his edit was removed as unencyclopedic, he insulted Wikipedia, atheists, and threatened to sue Wikipedia if it continued to display the "lies" on his page. He also claimed in the gamepolitics.com forum, as well as on his apparent Wikipedia account, that Wikipedia is his favourite fiction website. The comments on GamePolitics.com were confirmed by the site owner to have come from an IP Thompson regularly posts and emails from. [4] Yeago 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jack Thompson page is really messy and unorganized. I have a few suggestions-
-Try to make some of it more neutral.
-Make a seperate page for Flowers For Jack.
-Move anything possible from the Gamepolitics page to the JT page and vice versa.
-Move all of the sections about specific games together, and get rid of any unnecessary links.
I can do some of this stuff on my own, these are just a few suggestions.
Jabrwock 03:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I copied the Jack Thompson and Gamepolitics section onto the gamepolitics article a few days ago, but didn't think to take it off here, I had just did it as I didn't have all the information on his bans. Pixelanteninja 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is far too long, especially if we are going to add more information. Here is how I propose we split the article:
Mred64 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) ╫
I moved Strickland vs. Sony and "A Modest Proposal" to their own sub-articles. Eventually we'll probably need a TOC in each sub-article, so you can jump from sub-article to sub-article directly rather than having to go back up. Jabrwock 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
In 2002 [5]
"Norwalk-like flu virus" besieging primarily the Disney Cruise Line may be the work of al-Qaeda affiliated bioterrorists. The prophet Muhammad was a pirate.
Jabrwock 17:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The article should be linked as it does show some relavance to Mr. Thompson's ability to take make assumptions with vaguely related facts. Actually even though they would make this article weighty links to his written articles give a better feel for Thompson than any write up people can give. -Toll
Flowers for Jack found info on his wife, a fellow Miami lawyer. According to Thompson, they've been married 30 ish years. She specilizes in commercial law. Interestingly, she's on the Florida Bar Grievance Committee "IIB"...
In the threats section it says that gamepolitics changed it's posting policy due to that law and his comments on the suicide of the gamer, it was found early on that it only really applied to e-mails, and Thompson was the only one who seemed to take it seriously. I think we should take this out as it seemed that the suicide comments were what really drove Dennis to change the policy but don't want to start an edit war. Thoughts, anyone? Pixelanteninja 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe it a combination of things, but the suicide gamer comments Thompson posted were the last straw for Dennis. He wanted to be able to ban Thompson from posting, but he didn't realise that Thompson could just sign up for a new LJ account, which he did repeatedly. So now as long as he doesn't get out of hand, Dennis lets him post. But when he goes overboard with his insults, that account gets banned and he has to sign up for a new one. Jabrwock 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Which, I might add, is "ban evasion", and is against the LJ TOS, puishable by permanent IP banning from LG. l0gue and others have started their petition to urge LJ to take such action against Thompson. -- 216.161.72.96 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Dennis knew that he could sign up for an account as he said that he could just ban him if he did. Pixelanteninja 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What about Jack Thompson and Video Gamers or Response to Jack Thompson for another sub-article? I'm thinking it should include the Livejournal/GamePolitics, Correspondence, Response, Threats, and Metalgearsolid.org sections. It would really help to shorten this article. Mred64 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that was a dumb move, now we have how many other articles relating to Jack Thompson, just leave the letter there,it shows a lot about Jack's character. Father Time89
He just posted a letter to the "secret service" on gamepolitics.com [ [6]] in response to some flash game mocking the cheney hunting incident because you shoot at the image of George W. Bush (attached to a sheeps head, with laser eyes!) among others. Not sure if it's worthy stuff, or just his usual antics. SanderJK 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
ohn B. Thompson, Attorney at Law 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 305-666-4366
February 22, 2006
Robert D. Segall President, Alabama State Bar Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, PA Montgomery, Alabama 36101 Via Fax to 334-834-3172
Re: Jack Thompson v. Alabama State Bar
Dear Mr. Segall:
I wrote you sixteen days ago and asked you to call me back regarding the mishandling of a State Bar complaint against me which in fact was not even filed and yet with your Bar is “investigating” it in violation of its own Bar Rules.
Because you did not extend to me the courtesy of any kind of response, I have had to sue the Alabama State Bar today. I have also moved the court for mediation of the matter, in a spirit of professional cooperation which has been utterly lacking on the part of the State Bar.
It appears that the Alabama State Bar has an attitude that it need not descend from Olympus to talk with a lawyer from a border state. That’s fine. I like the people of the Alabama, and I look forward to spending more time there. I shall be addressing the Eagle Forum in Birmingham on March 31, and I’ll explain, from my perspective how the Alabama State Bar misunderstands its statutory function.
Your own Bar ballyhoos at its Internet site the benefits of conflict resolution short of litigation. I happen to agree with that approach. It’s unfortunate that you and the rest of the Bar machinery have made this litigation necessary by your refusal to communicate to try to resolve this matter amicably.
Sincerely, Jack Thompson
Copy: Judge James W. Moore, Fayette County Judicial Inquiry Commission Media http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/213925.html?thread=15262117#t15262117
I just reverted the latest changes made by an admin (forgot who he was) who said that he was putting the "sensible version". An encyclopedia is not about sensibility, it's about the facts. This is who the man is and as such it should stand! 66.231.253.100
Well, judging by the remarks left at Brookie's talk page ("I'm bored of this. A tedious article - good bye!") [11], it seems clear that this administrator is not interested in discussing or developing a consensus regarding their actions. I cannot judge whether this is an act of bad faith or not, or whether or not they're violating the "try to preserve information" portion of WP:Editing Policy (I don't believe that an article being "tedious" is a valid criteria for deleting verifiable information), but at the very least they're guilty of poor etiquette and are definitely committing a faux pas by ignoring and deleting concerns posted on their talk page.
As attempts at discussion have failed due to this user refusing to respond to or acknowledge our concerns, and at times outright hiding them from public view [12]; I believe the best solution (at least as a first step) is to seek informal mediation under WP:Resolving Disputes. I would not propose this if a regular Wikipedian had blanked the article, but I am concerned about future vandalism of this article by this user, as well as the potential for abuse of administrative power - it's hard to assume good faith when the admin in question pretends your concerns don't exist. What do other people here think about this course of action? Is this going too far? All I'd really like to gain from this is an assurance that this admin will not in the future decide to "prune" 90+ percent of this article and then pretend that it's not a problem. Everybody's thoughts would be appreciated. Nortelrye 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The response among recent contributors appears to be fairly good at this point, and so I intend to go forward with the remedies available under WP:Resolving Disputes. In the interest of maintaining civility and good faith, I will wait at least 48 hours after the time of my initial posting before commencing the dispute resolution process, in order to give Brookie more than ample time to respond. Perhaps they can overcome their being "bored of this" and do us the courtesy of addressing our various concerns. Nortelrye 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
After i cleaned up the new picture of JT of jpeg artifacts i got asked where the original image came from, i didnt know before but i now tracked it to this source:
http://www.gamepro.com/lofi/article.cfm?article_id=49525 Jernejl 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
24.70.24.114 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)isn't it better to use a more up to date picture?
It doesn't really matter, but we should probably include the age of the photo....-- Vercalos 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture doesn't need to be up to date (is George Washington's picture up to date?), but we should include when it was taken, if we know. Also, has anyone checked on the copyright of this picture? Wouldn't want to do anything to make Jack angry, now would we? -- Bakkster Man 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it makes more sense to use a current picture of him, since he is still alive, and he does have a current colour image available. Nobody is going to go changing George Bush's image to one of him 20 years ago. Once George is dead, the picture that represents him as once being president will be used, because it will be the most well known. Jack Thompson today is recognized by the grey-white hair, and newsroom, not by some 40 year old black and white photo of his younger days before his crusades. Bo916 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I recently edited the 'Miscellaneous cases' [13] portion of the article, in part to remove what appeared to be POV conjecture, and afterwards cleaned up the wording a bit. I noticed that the news story that was cited as a source [14] no longer appears on the website ("The requested article was not found."). I could not find another source to substitute. Should this section and the reference to the supporting news article be removed entirely? What does everybody else think? Nortelrye 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is cute. First Jack posts Dennis' unlisted, private phone number, claiming it's an office # so all's fair. Then he bitches at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and claims that Dennis' is misrepresenting himself as their employee. Apparently he did this once before, and the PP didn't do anything. Here's Dennis' explanation: [15] Then Thompson claims someone from the Pioneer Press called him to "thank" him for "exposing" Dennis. Jabrwock 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been ROTFLMAO all day on this one. Seriously this article and the wikiquotes section are studies in a man sinking into depravity. Anyways encyclopedic question: Anyone think the phrase "verbal diarreha of the keyboard" is too POV? Considering the sheer amount of "press releases", emails, spam, etc, etc. That Jack is capable of? No need to mention his poor editing, grammar, spelling, coherent sentences, they speak for themselves.-- 69.132.103.165 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Tollwutig... maybe one day I'll get a wiki account
I was actually asking if it was in this case. Can anyone think of a better way to describe the sheer volume Mr. Thompson puts out. Not only in quantity of letters, emails, etc, but in thier length. None of it really holding together. Just sheer volume. Considering this is a major trait, not only on gamepolitics, but looking through the wikiquotes everything he does, from articles, his websites, lawsuits, etc. A major trait should be described.. ok so maybe not verbal diarreha but something about his prolific writings should be mentioned. --Toll
"expresses great volubility when discussing his political stance." I like this one too. Toll
For reference, this is the first thread which indicates his Permanent ban.
[16] There's a bit of searching, but it was performed after there were abuse reports sent to LiveJournal. --
Sigma 7
17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like User:Monicasdude is on a quest to remove all "non-notable" articles, so he spams {Prod} tags all over the place. Every sub-article has been tagged. I commented on the articles for deletion page. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_24#Strickland_vs._Sony Jabrwock 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake - Its better like this. Before the article was way too long, now its nice and clear, and you have further articles to go to for more indepth info IanC 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, seems all the pages that where "proposed for deletion" have survived IanC 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sometime soon I'm going to make a "Talk" subpage called "Research". Basically it will be a whiteboard so we can gather all the material into one long page, and organize it. This way we can keep track of various stories, and then we can pick out the important bits to summarize on the main wiki entry. This will allow us to condense the article, while still retaining the in-depth info for reference, instead of having to scour the web for the various links. This should deal with the "delete this fancruft" crowd, as it will make the article short & sweet, and we get to keep our indepth material intact so we have background info to work with. Jabrwock 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a vanity article to me. Isn't this article a bit long for a not particularly notable lawyer?
As an activist lawyer, he's definitely notable. -- Bakkster Man 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me in if cloud strife and evil clown can have an article longer then this then the length is fine. 203.112.2.212 19:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sudden violence arising from video game playing is being caused by a problem with human physiology related to the vision startle reflex.
In the 1960's designers, engineers, and psychologists accidentally found a 'conflict of physiology' when knowledge workers began to have mental breaks. This came to their attention because the victims were using the first prototypes of movable close-spaced workstations.
The problem was solved and the cubicle became the industry standard to stop the mental events.
The Redlake school shooter left a journal entry describing what he did to create exposure to Subliminal Distraction. Other shooters in prison have psychiatric symptoms, hearing voices, to indicate they had a mental event to precipitate the shooting.
The same phenomenon produced the Everquest Addiction episode of 2001/02 http://visionandpsychosis.net/Everquest_connection.htm
The same mental breaks happen on scientific expeditions and Russian space missions. One Russian killed another with a hatchet in an argument over a chess game. There have been fist fights over chess games on Russian space stations.
http://visionandpsychosis.net/Astronauts_Insanity.htm
This phenomenon can be experienced with a simple psychology experiment. http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you_can_do.htm
L K Tucker 68.223.107.250 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
First time past the article in a few days, is the comment in the introduction about his son playing games rated E really necessary/POV? I couldn't imagine an encyclopedia saying that... Melander 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
From http://www.starttruth.com/articles/thompson/bono.php (removed - it can be read on the above provided link, no need for copying it down here)
I wonder who he'll write next? Bush?? Maluka 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see why he'd write this. Take Two should be the last company you'd ever want to purchase. I always find JT's writing style unique. Always starts so eloquent, until he starts bragging ("I was on 60 minutes, TWICE!!!") and insulting ("They're lying liars that got caught lying"). On the other hand, I agree with his logic, and if I had the balls I'd tell Bono we was making a mistake. Still dowsn't belong in the article, though. -- Bakkster Man 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
My god! I must have been secretly trained for years by the Nintendo 64 with its evil Rumble Paks to become a mass murderer! I felt the thrill of the kill from blasting the leader in Diddy Kong Racing, and I felt the visceral jolt of joy of collecting honey combs in Banjo-Kazooie! Curse you rumbling controllers! Curse you Nintendo and everything you stand for! - MarphyBlack 13:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This article, without even counting the sub-pages, is significantly longer than Wikipedia's biographies of George Washington and Napoleon I of France, and practically the same length as those of Joseph Stalin and George W. Bush, just to pick some reasonably notable people more-or-less at random. Jack Thompson, by contrast, even if he is widely quoted, seems to be a relatively peripheral cultural figure. Why is this guy so important that we need a book-length narrative about him? -- Russ Blau (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Bush and his contemporaries are fairly restrained - they rarely make candid statements to the press. JT here just goes after anybody and even without concrete evidence - such is the case with The Sims 2, how he used a questionable source ot make the outragous claim that Sims 2 was a game for pedophiles. Also, the sheer number of people he has attacked - Amazon.com, GTA:SA< GTA:VC, The SIms 2, and so forth - have touched many gaming communities that are offended by his actions. - Hbdragon88 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What you're missing here is that Jack has one article on Wikipedia. GWB has many, many more. For example:
So, Jack T. clearly doesn't out-weigh GWB on Wikipedia -- Jack T. just has almost all of his information on one page. As such -- I don't think this article needs to be trimmed down. If anything, just move lager sections to their own article. - Quasipalm 20:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the panda magazine section, as all it amounts to is basically someone talking shit about someone else. Nothing notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Was there not an incedent related to his proposal that someone made a video game that kills video game developers? If i remember correctly, penny arcade donated 10,000 dollars in his name to a charity after Jack Thompson refused to pay? Im still looking for more information, but i remember hearing about this on Gamespot presents the hotspot. Can someone please help find anything about this incident and maybe propose it should be included into the article. Tommygun141 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened? Is this the result of legal action by JT, or possibly just administrative action on the page's length? Maybe the actions of a lone contributor? Anyone know? -- Bakkster Man 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont like what that message says.... IanC 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So in other words we don't get to know what this whole thing is about? -- Shaoken 02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope Wikipedia realizes that if they don't say why they locked the article then a large flame war will start, remember when the mod deleted every single video-game related thing from the article.-- Father Time89
When was this? But removing all video game references from Jack Thompon's article is like removing all religous references from the Pope -- Shaoken 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There are still many subpages on Jack Thompson still on wikipedia. Reub2000 10:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jack Thompson ordered Wikipedia to remove this article. It had numerous statements that were not true and defamed Mr. Thompson. He sent a copy of the letter to the press:
Dear Board Members of Wikipedia Foundation:
I contacted the Foundation at [removed], asking for your fax number, and the person who answered the phone refused to give it to me because I indicated this pertained to a legal matter. This arrogance helps explain some of your problems.
You have at your www.wikipedia.org a number of false, defamatory, and actionable statements about me. As an aside, you all don't even have my date and year of birth correct, and it goes downhill from there.
I am hereby demanding that you give me the real names, addresses, and phone numbers, and any other verifying information, regarding anyone who has posted anything about me at Wikipedia, as they will be defendants. You have thirty days to comply with this demand. The Seigenthaler experience shows that you must provide me this information.
Jack Thompson also mentioned that he tried to correct the false statements and foolish Wikipedians then removed the fixes and called it vandalism. Thompson has threatened legal action if Wikipedia does not comply, and says he suffered harm due to the fake information.
This situation is only going to get Wikipedia more criticism now. But at least the article was removed as Jack Thompson asked for
xSTRIKEx6864 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings all.
As a new member here, who has been a long time member of GP, I'm sure I"m gonna probably get alot of heat for what I'm about to say.
If wikipedia is actually submitting to Jack Thompson, then you should just dismantle the site entirely and call it quits. Jack Thompson has no case, no claim, and no real arguement. His actions are his own, regardless of if they are flattering or not, they have been documented, evidance of them was given, and it is his own words that damned him on this site. If he cannot accept that, he should not have acted as he did.
Wikipedia, as it's name implies, is supposed to be a an encyclopedia of information. Yet when I, at the time a non member, added some small updates to a few items, even including links to proof of my statments, they were deleted. Why? Cause they proved JT was lieing? So when hard fact does not agree with a person you remove it.
Jack Thompson's Article should be restored to it's former self asap. It doesn't matter if he likes what it says or not, it's his own words, actions, and deeds. They have been documented and validated. If Wikipedia is not going to do what it's meant to do, be a repository for truthful, informative data, then why does it even exsist. I'm sure theres plenty of others who might not like what is listed on there Wikipedia page, but if what is there is true, as it was with Thompson, then there is no reason for it to be changed.
If you was not willing to stand by wikipedia, and those who did all the work needed to form the article in question, what purpose does this site serve?
Sorry for the rant, but it sickens me that Wikipedia would actually listen to a man whose been shown to be a racist, a liar, a bigot, and more, let alone bow down to his pointless and empty threats.
Yukimura.
The article now fails even the most basic requirements we have on Wikipedia.
Often cited? We never use those words without a citation, since they are useless otherwise, as useless as the supposedly libelous material that was here before. So that line should be removed, which gives us:
Which is an obvious speedy candidate as it fails to establish notability.
By the way, I find it deplorable (if the press release a few pages up is true) that the Office is seriously responding to a request that includes a demand for names, phone numbers, and other identifying information, so that they may be prosecuted. I would say this outlandish demand negates the veracity of the blanking request. Requests should only be considered when they make sense. But I suppose the legal threats ban doesn't apply when they're sent specifically to Danny. -- Golbez 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
An article about Jack Thompson will be created. It will, I hope, be a very thorough article. It will also be properly and fully cited. This is a temporary measure. Danny 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A lot of gonad swinging around here. How many of you run your own websites? I'd rather have Wiki minus one article on some psycho pundit than no Wiki at all. This isn't a game of who blinks first contrary to what the Internet would make you believe. Danny Lilithborne 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As an Impartial viewer of this site, I have to say to remove this article or modify it in any way is no more different than changing history- say removing any reference to the World Trade Tower because it offends someone. History is not supposed to be biased on account of if someone agrees with it or not, Wikipedia has always stood for neutrality. If you remove this article, you act as the individual or events never existed; to me if you choose to bastardize information on that scale, you may as well remove references to the holocost because people debate the truth of that as well. 165.166.180.188 03:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
So what exactly did Wikipedia Violate? If he's whiny about his bio and how its written, he should go ahead and make his own auto-biography if he wants. I dont think you guys violated any guidelines as far as I'm concerned, and as long as this is based on an American Attorney, the same freedoms that are placed in the constitution should be exercised here. Thats pretty much my 2 cents. User:mothman47 00:38, 13 March 2006
There are two things I find kind of disturbing here. One is the building of accusations upon assumptions. Some people seem to assume that the Foundation received this letter and immediately protected the article. That is false. There were several steps in between these two processes, as the comment by BradPatrick above would indicate. The second is that the Foundation, which would be the defendant if Mr Thompson chose to sue us (and he has not), would then be obliged to post all of its legal strategies on this page for discussion and debate by various Wikipedians. The Foundation does not know all of the people who commented here. Do you really think it is wise to discuss all the details of what is happening in such an open forum? That is the second thing I find disturbing. Assume some good faith, particularly in the people such as Jimbo who make this website possible.
Having said all that, I would invite Wikipedians to begin to reconstruct the article by offering suggestions as to how a more fuller survey of Jack Thompson's life and career can be covered in a neutral and fully sourced way. Thompson contended that even his date of birth was wrong. Then let's rebuild the article so that every single fact is correct and sourced. As David Gerard said above, there is no reason why this should not be a candidate for featured article. Danny 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, this is a bit of a rant, but I want to add this here. We have really got to cope with this sort of thing better as a community - for the good of the project as a whole. We get a complaint, it goes through various stages (I'm one of them as someone who answers our email, when it gets beyond me I pass it to people like Danny and BradP). At one or another of those stages the article might get temporarily blanked, or protected, or deleted... and then the row starts.
But I think it's important to say that none of these interventions are done lightly. Don't you think that everyone involved has the same ideals of free and open knowledge? Why else would they be here? We are all Wikipedians. But there are also the practicalities. It's better to have one article temporarily in a stubby state, or even permanently so, than the project as a whole to be in trouble. And frequently the community as a whole can't be told all the details. Because to make them public would inflame and escalate the situation that they are trying to fix in the first place.
I get to hear quite a few bits of what's going on, because of the work I do. But there is a whole lot I don't hear, and that's as it has to be. If Danny or Brad told me to take action on an article, but said that they couldn't tell me why, then I would likely do it. Not through some sort of blind obedience, but because I trust them, and trust that they have the good of Wikipedia firmly in their sights. If that isn't the way the community as a whole reacts to this sort of problem, then we are going to end up in real trouble some day. -- sannse (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to add my own semi-rant to sannse's; I'm in the same boat she is as someone who wades through the mail desk. If anything Jimbo and Danny have more stake in the project than any one of the rest of us. It is neither to their interest nor anyone else's to damage an article or to abandon the openness of Wikipedia. And I can speak with absolute confidence that for every WP:OFFICE protection, there are loads upon loads of "sorry you're unhappy with this article, can you tell us what's incorrect to help us fix it?" mails that no one gets much bothered about and most of the community never hears about. Sometimes they are very angry, sometimes they are from wealthy and powerful people, and we don't get too fussed about them until there is a serious concern that we may be doing wrong, and something needs to change, and that something hasn't happened via the usual community processes. That's what office actions are for.
Do you have any idea how big Wikipedia is and how much attention it gets? This isn't Joe Schmoe's website that no one will ever see; publishing here is like publishing in the 'New York Times. Except that we're on the web and searchable without registration. There is actually serious damage to be done by having falsehood and rumors up on articles, and if our community processes have failed to get that right then it's clear some intervention is needed. It's done to save the project, not to destroy it, and I imagine that Danny would rather chew his own toenails off than face this sort of shitstorm without good cause.
Now, everyone who does have good, verifiable, neutral, cited information to add, go work on writing temp versions so we can replace this accursed thing. Complaining on the talk page doesn't help do that, but researching does. Without whitewashing, without censoring, with the whole neutral and verifiable truth, and only that, and if it meets those standards it'll be back up no matter what Thompson thinks of it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
As someone who also sometimes fields the emails that Mediawiki gets, I add my sentiments to those of Sannse and Mindspillage. We are volunteers. Let anybody who is concerned that there may be some kind of weird cabal at work, consider in his own mind whether he's prepared to take on some voluntary work on OTRS, out ticketing system. Any good faith applications to join will I'm sure be happily dealt with by Danny or Kat (Mindspillage). On conditions of confidentiality, you will then get to deal with everyday complaints from readers and editors, and this may give you a clear picture of the kind of day-to-day complaint that Wikipedia deals with.
I wish everybody here who, in good faith, believes that the Foundation is being dictatorial or underhand, or is doing things in a hidden way, would join OTRS and contribute to the work Wikipedia has to do, day in, day out, to keep itself in touch with its customers--and I make no apology for using that word, the public are our customers and the public's money and the public's choice have made this the number one reference site in the world. Let us keep in touch with our customers and our best editors. The editors can accomplish this at any time by doing their duty as OTRS volunteers. -- Tony Sidaway 01:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's my proposition for rebuilding the article (in a way to prevent problems from happening in the future). First of all, if you feel strongly about Jack's views, please refrain from editing the article directly. Feel free to participate in the talk page discussion and research, but if you feel you might make a POV statement, let someone else do it.
Secondly, everyone should read the WP:LIVING guidelines on editing biographies of living people. I have a feeling that if we had followed them more closely, this never would have happened.
Third, we use whiteboard page here to organize our research and fully cite our sources. Even as few as two days ago I was still trying to find sources to add to uncited sections.
Thoughts/ideas/additions? Hopefully using a thorough process we can rebuild the page better than it was before. -- Bakkster Man 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
For someone who is new to using/posting on Wiki, would actually using direct quotes of the man in question be considered POV, even if they can be backed up with actual evidence? Mr.Pat 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is always going to be a problem as long as Thompson continues to advance his views on video games. I have a neutral position to the whole affair, but there are some people who take video games waaay too seriously, and the majority of them spend a lot of time on the Internet. If we're going to try to create an article that won't ultimately cross the legal boundaries of libel (again), this problem has to be addressed. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the date of birth though, how was the page exactly libel? I researched the situation and every single one of his quotes are exact, as were his various letters. Mr.Pat 00:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether or not it was libel according to the current laws; Wikipedia is a virtual gold mine for ambitious civil attorneys to try and make new law. The dictionary definition of libel would give one plenty of cause to, at the very least, waste a lot of the website administrators' time and money, and that alone is enough reason to give pause. Danny Lilithborne 00:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that Thompson claimed that the article was libelous and actionable --- of course, the truth is, it wasn't. I'm so beyond frustrated by now. The man, even more so than Michael Moore or even Ann Coulter, is duplicitous and pathological. Other blowhards from every inch of the spectrum at least sincerely believe what they're saying or, when they screw up, at least shut up and stop propagating it. Some people, though, like Jack, don't. And what's scary is that we're now giving in to his pathological, demented need for attention. Wikipedia is dead to me. If only I had the resources, I would threaten to sue Wikimedia every day, make thousands of vexatious law suits, just to punish them for giving in to this one. Hopefully the server farm will burn to the ground and purge this stupidity once and for all.
This incident, and the reaction by the WP:OFFICE staff really made me pause and give newfound credence to the Five Wikipedia Predictions by Jason Scott (see prediction #4). The board really needs to come up with some proactive solutions to these problems now before they wind up alienating the entire editing community. Silensor 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of if this article was slanted or not, Libel only applies if you have verifiable proof that a statement was wrong and or defamatory. In the case of Mr. Thompsons article, this was not only not the case, but it was also probably the most cited article that wikipedia had seen. At it's highest point, the article had over 100 cited sources, though admittedly, many of them were from Jack Thompsons postings on Game Politics, it was confirmed by that sites owner, that it was indeed Jack Thompson making those statements.
Now, due to recent changes to the Live Journal system, most notably Thompsons permant banning from Game Politics, some of this citations are no longer valid. It would however be important to not that many of them are still housed by Wikiquote, and thus are still verified and located on in an easily linkable area. My concern is not that the article will altered, but that those statements made by JT, which were verified, be left intact. Jack is doing this not cause of libel, but cause he does not want the truth about his actions to be seen by the public. If wikipedia allows him to bully them into silence, there allowing him to hide the truth from the public, a far worse crime then Libel, in my opinion. ( YukimuraSanada 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
How so mike? IANAL, but I have family that is involved in the court system, and I asked around. Libel normally requires three things.
1. Falsified statments. not the case here, since these were his own statments in most cases. 2. Monitary Harm::jack hasn't won a case in years, no harm there. 3. Damage to reputation.: Need to have one to damage to begin with.
However, as I said, IANAL, so if you have some details and clarification ,I'm happy to hear it. Unlike Jack ,I"m man enough to admit when I might be wrong. ( YukimuraSanada 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
I am trying to keep faith in the office, but having seen jacks actions in the past, I'm not so much upset about his threats as I am about wikipedia actually buying into them. He's made threats against multiple groups and people no less then a dozen times as seen on your own acticle, and never followed threw. The fact that you actually listened to him will just fuel his insanity and make him even more determined to attack you.
If you'd ignored him, he's have gone away.
Oh, why, wikipedia, why? Cowardice.
User:Mightfox
I second that. User:mothman47
I'm more upset that wiki office pulled the article then Jack Thompson threatening to sue. He does the latter all the time, while the former is a form of censorship and thus always scary. Wiki shows the Danish cartoons, but not the well researched (How many offsite links, 150?) actions of a very controversial lawyer, based on a single email? SanderJK 13:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone object to adding his birthdate or would that be too controversial an addition? I mean we're here to provide information, not protect ourselves from lawsuits. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with blanking pages when people threaten to sue Wikipedia over its content is:
This is an awful idea. The article should be restored immediately. - Quasipalm 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! Restore the article! Shane 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, restore the article. People need to stand up to Jack Thompson. Scott Ramsoomair, Tycho and Gabe have all stood up to him and he crawled away, nothing says the Wikipedia can't do the same either. SavannahLion 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
have nothing good to say about this man and I have never seen this man say anything good about the gaming industry. SavannahLion 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
For crying out loud, RESTORE the page. Has he threatened to sue? Is the letter going to be on GamePolitics?? This looks so bad for Wikipedia. Maluka 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Biological Age: 15". That makes you an expert on real life?? I'm chewing my cheeks. This is real bad and checking around the net, I've found more things critical of Wikipedia than Jack. I can't believe Wikipedia bent over and took it like they did. Cowards! Maluka 08:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Let it be folks. Danny is right. No matter how unstable or insane he may be, there is no denying that jack is still a lawyer, and that means he must have some understanding of law, though admittedly, it's been shown in the past that it is sketcy and sometimes completely incorrect.
I say, let danny and the office look into this. The best thing we can do is offer support and catalog as much verifiable info about Thompson as we can for them. Then when he have enough of it, and if he ever does get the balls to take wiki to court, we will have him dead to rights and wiki can counter sue and put him away for good.
I"m not happy about this, but I'm gonna support wiki on this, they were a gold mine to me during school, and I'll stick by them. That being said, I'm upset that they even listened to the man, but there right, he's still a lawyer, and so we should at least take him a little serious. ( YukimuraSanada 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
The original article isn't even gone, anyway. I wonder if Jack knows this. Crystallina 16:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my second intrusion, but it sould be noted that John Bruce Thompson has already gone to GP and posted under a new identity (and apparently a new IP address). Why is this significant? Because in one of his latest rantings, he, in a way, is bragging about a victory over Wikipedia's blanking of his article. At least that is the tone I am getting from his posts. But then, that's the usual tone from his posts, even when there is no clear victory. I'm new to adding my comments here, so I won't post the direct link. But he is using ID murdersims under the 10Mar2006 article Justice Files. In one of the articles, he lists what GP supposedly did not cover. Wikipedia is number 5 in the list. I don't know how Office feels regarding such acts, but thought they, and the rest, should know. I kept a copy of the post in case GP decides to delete it. Thank you for your attention. Andrew Rhodes 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's good to know that all it'll take is the threat of legal action to shut Wikipedia pages down. You may as well take the rest of the site down, as this will simply snowball on other controversial issues.
The reason very little posisitive is avalible about Jack is cause he's done nearly nothing posistive in years. He's a censor, a man who wants to take away rights from others. I hardly think thats a posistive stance to take in a country that prides itself on the ideals of freedom. Jack May not like what his article said, but only because it showed him to be the hatemongering, communist style lunatic he was. If he wasn't acting that way, then why were there over 140 cited sources showing those exact actions, showing rampant hypocracy, showing lies and deciet and a near endless cavalcade of Bullshit. Sorry, but the fact is, jack didn't like the article cause it showed him to be what he really is, a facist style self serving parastie. If he didn't behave like one, we wouldn't have all the evidance we do on him. ( YukimuraSanada 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
Many things are controversial for many issues. Among the things you wouldn't expect, there is a constant debate on the Einstein page wether he invented relativity or not. By the very nature of wikipedia a lot of it's content will always be disputed. Are we removing all entries with a talk page that has a serious discussion on it? And a censored enclopedia is no encyclopedia at all. SanderJK 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to come and ask the current article maintainers what JT was up to since his banning at GamePolitics (which kind of killed the party over there), but it looks like you guys have got that covered - and then some. Jack Thompson x Wikidrama = comedy gold/worrying reminder that the internet is serious business.
PS for Maluka: A/S/L? 24.20.237.11 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hes back on GP, as "murdersims"
Anyone who thinks this article was biased against him go and look at what he posted here as murdersims IanC 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, he is a parody of himself. The article should be restored immediately Sonic Hog
Jack never mentions exactly what is unture about the article other then his birthday (which isn't that big of a deal unless the year is off by a lot) even though it was deleted. Jack Thompson doesn't want people to know about his actions. Well too bad for him, Jack dug his own grave and he still continues to dig it although not as much as before, it reminds me of a joke I heard, why are lawyers alway buried 6 feet deep? Because deep down lawyers are OK. Anyway sorry Jack but you got yourself into this, you shouldn't have made fun of the suicide of the metal gear gamer, you shouldn't have called the flowers harrasment, and you shouldn't have compared gamers to hitler's youth. I also hope you realise that this article blanking is by no means permanent. Father Time89
I need to add my 2 cents here. I am sick how this is turning out. If Jack Thompson can shut down a wiki article about him, what is next? We already know he gave a cryptic threat to GamePolitics saying he is next. Whats next? Bringing down a site because they have a forum? This guy thinks he can shut down sites which allow users unrestricted free speech. Now Wikipedia has a very big problem. It is like terrorism, if you give in once, they will know they can continue to get their way. Jack Thompson is proving himself to be a Litigation Terrorist: Threaten lawsuits to anyone he disagrees with, and hope he can scare them. It has been said before, and I'm sure it will be said again, but now, whenever someone wants to change their listing, all they have to do is threaten litigation, and they know Wikipedia will cave. I am willing to bet it is just a matter of time before you get your next letter. Add to that the loss of respect from the Internet community you have taken. One thing we hate: censorship.
Why does the article need to be blanked and protected because of a legal threat? Why not just identify what in the article is problematic and then we can concentrate our efforts on that? There may be a good reason for doing it this way, I just don't know what it is. Everyking 12:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I come back here after finally replacing a fried motherboard, and this is what I see... After taking a look at all the comments, I've concluded that this situation really isn't as bad as some people posting here seem to think it is. Wikipedia has not nuked the article, they've not banned anybody contributing to it, they're not horribly censoring *anything*. Regardless of the individual making the threats (and his obvious lack of sanity), legal threats were still made, and they have to be dealt with as such. Wikipedia, in what clearly appears to be a gesture of good faith, has removed the disputed content until they figure out how they wish to proceed in this matter. The data isn't gone forever (yet), and as far as I know, no names or IP addresses have been given up to JT. Wikipedia is simply exercising caution in dealing with a potential lawsuit, and I would be disappointed in them if they didn't do such things. I've not seen them capitulate in the face of legal threats [20] from other net-kooks, and I don't expect that they will do so in this situation. If JT actually does sue them in this case, I will definitely be chipping into a legal fund, and I hope to see the same from other GP readers.
However, I believe that like all of Thompson's other legal threats, this one will go nowhere, and I look forward to seeing the content restored; because while it may be in dire need of POV and bias adjustments, it's still the truth about his actions. In the meantime, hurling insults at Wikipedia and personal attacks at some of its members (no matter how creepy some might find their profiles) and trying to sneak around the lock on this page is NOT GOING TO HELP. If you really care about Wikipedia and its mission, you'll let them handle it according to their policies. But please, please stop trying to undermine what they're doing by creating pages like 'Jack Thompson (lawyer)' to get around the lock. Nortelrye 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require users to input real names, phone numbers, addresses etc., and I doubt would give out such information without dire need to do so, which this case clearly lacks. Another short comment - most people with such radical ideas will be ignored by the majority of society, and in general needn't be defamed; they shall bring it upon themselves. brabblebrex 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
If they do get sued, I to will contribuate to the legal fund to help, and I'm sure I could get a number of GP readers to join in, but to be honest, last night an Idea came to me. Perhaps what the foundation needds isn't to fight this battle alone. IT needs to contact one of JT's biggest enemies, The Law firm blank rome. They are currently collecting as much evidance one JT as possible. Giving them this info would be alot of help in getting his ass disbarred. Just a thought. (
YukimuraSanada
23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
Apparantly Jack has returned to posting on Game Politics and this is what he has to say on what happened to his Wikipedia article: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/227903.html?thread=16493631#t16493631
Specifically, this quote:
What? Is this for real? Jack Thompson is acting like this is a legal victory for him, and quite honestly, it's looking like it may truly be one for him unless the article is reinstated. What "falsity" was there ever? The only real disputed fact that ever occured was his birth date; something Jack himself wouldn't reveal or correct. By removing the article, Wikipedia is basically supporting Jack's claim that the article was pulled because it was false since it was Jack that made the original legal complaint over it.
I understand the moderators of Wikipedia are acting in good faith in light of Jack Thompson's request, but what I don't think they realize is that it is unlikely he will ever be satisfied with an article about him. As pointed out before, almost everything in the article was based entirely on fact. These were his actions and his words. The most anybody could really complain about was some (I stress some) lack of citation and a few somewhat POV-ish statements here and there. However, it's ridiculously absurd to think that the article was entirely false or libelous in any way that would constitute an entire removal.
I agree that this situation is somewhat overblown, but now we have Jack Thompson absolutely gloating his supposed victory over gamers and Wikipedia. This is not the kind of person whose wishes should be respected since he clearly only wanted the article removed with the intent of being able to mock his detractors over it. He doesn't care one bit about validity or a neutral point of view or necessary citations. He's just a guy acting with malicious intent. - MarphyBlack 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. I understand why Wiki did what they did... they don't want to get sued. It makes sense. But I don't see the point of even restoring the article. Wiki backed down when Jack threatened a lawsuit (sorry, I can't find a better way to say that right now. I don't blame wiki for their actions, though). When the article is back up, even if every other word is cited (and I'm sure it could be, he's everywhere now), he's going to complain. Why? He can't edit his own article, that's not encyclopedic. The stuff that goes on the wiki is the stuff that he does... which shows him negatively. If we put what he does on his wiki, it's going to reflect negatively on him. He'll try to edit it, get stopped again, and threaten to sue all over again, because it worked this time. IANAL (nor would I profess to know more than .5% of anything legal), but I wouldn't waste the time putting up the wiki again unless you get it in writing that he's not going to threaten to sue every 30 days. It could be my pessimism talking, but why even bother? 24.176.26.37 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)psyco_chick32
I don't understand exactly why Wiki would pull it. On the bottom of every page there is link disclaimers and when you click it, in bold and large font, is WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. If Mr. Thompson found so many glaring errors in his article, he could've discussed each one, or fixed it himself. Instead he chose to ignore all of them except his birthdate (and what libel that is!), and add a media blurp about how great he is, citing only his victories and non of his losses, several religious references etcet. He violated several rules by doing so and it got removed. Now i understand that noone likes to get sued, but if you pull articles based on threats alone, you are boldening censors and weakening yourself. I'm sad that the article got pulled, and Jack Thompson is going around the web screaming this as a victory, and that alone makes it clear to me that this was not the smart move. SanderJK 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about his to the Jack_Thompson article. The only way he would accept it is to allow him to edit it and have WikiAdmins perma-lock it. -- Xabora 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone clarify me on this, from my understanding if Wiki got an e-mail from some guy saying he's going to sue if they don't take down the article on evolution would they do it. I highly doubt it because said guy would have no legal backing whatsoever Jack Thompson MIGHT have some kind of legal backing and until the might becomes a definite "doesn't" the article will remain locked, however the good news is that Jack put on a 30 day timer so if Jack doesn't try to cooperate with wiki within 30 days they can probably return the article in it's glouroius original form (and of course add another new section on this fiasco). So be patient I am confident wiki knows what it's doing.Father Time89
Would anyone object to Category:Lawyers? Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I propose we add a see also: to the temporary page. Since the other articles related to Jack's actions are not under scrutiny, they can most likely be linked to. James v. Meow Media, Strickland v. Sony, Jack Thompson and video game players, A Modest Video Game Proposal, Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders, Flowers for Jack. I wouldn't reccomend adding the JT and gamers until this blows over, but what does everyone think? Danny, can we get authorization for this? -- Bakkster Man 16:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Jacky is quoted in it.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14084718.htm
Ladies and Gents, please, be calm. Mr. Thompson's standard Modus Operandi is to use his standing as a lawyer to threaten legal action against, well, everyone. While most people who have followed Mr. Thompson's career are well aware that these are the threats of a paper tiger, Wikipedia has to take every such legal threat seriously.
What is going to happen right now is that the fact checkers at Wikipedia are going to go through the Jack Thompson article, verify some of the more outrageous claims (which, dispite Jack's desperate lies to the contrary, are easily verifyable), and restore the article after fixing some of the wording to make it more NPOV. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the article came back bigger and more detailed than before.
If you wish to help, please bring forth any verifyable sources about some of the more "interesting" anticdotes that follow Jack Thompson's interesting history. For example: Citing his much publisized episode with the VGCats.com artist (wherein he sent a random email to Scott, then, when Scott replied, Jack called him repeated names, slandered him, and then threatened to sue him for harrassment when he replied) [21], or citing a verifyable reference for his infamous "Janet Reno Lesbian Note" debacle during the legendary debate. [22]
Dispite what people like Mr. Thompson would like you to believe, he is a public figure, and subject to public scrutiny. And, in addition, he can claim that Wikipedia contains falsehoods, but if they come from verifyable sources, and indeed, given his extensive history of online communications, I do believe most of the outlandish claims are actually true and verifyable, I fear Mr. Thompson will be woefully dissapointed when the new, NPOV Jack Thompson article is unveiled.
Sources Cited:
KiTA 17:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What is actually being done here? What is the next stage in the process of getting this back to normal, or an editable state? Is there a next stage? If so, is anyone working on it? Everyking 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article will be back up soon, and it was just brought down temporarily while Wikipedia consults the legal matters of this issue and possibly do a verification/clean up of this article. Remember that encyclopedias are about facts, and most if not all that is mentioned here about this man is fact and is backed-up by proof. Should it be deleted just because now, when he looks at them put together, he finds them embarrasing and inconvenient? I don't think so, and I'm betting The Wikipedia Foundation feels the same. As for the threats agains the Wikipedia contributors, if Mr. Thompson hadn't been absent the day they taught law at law school, he would know that for a site/corporation or entity to release private information of it's users/contributors, etc... He needs a subpeona. Anyone remember the RIAA and their subpoenas to people using file sharing services? Same applies. I'm certain Wikipedia knows about this and would not let itself be bullied by a lawyer making an empty threat with blanket accusations and no proof or following due process, so the locking of this article must be just a precautionary meassure.