THANK YOU, AND GOODBYE!
Wikitruth thanks you for your years of support!

Talk:Uncensored:Jack Thompson (attorney)

From Wikitruth

This is a talk page archive, current as of April 13, 2006. For administrative logs pertaining to this article, please see Uncensored:Jack Thompson (attorney)/Logs.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Uncensored:Jack Thompson (attorney) article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (`~~~~`). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them `==A Descriptive Header==`. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

The subject of this article, Uncensored:Jack Thompson (attorney), has edited Wikipedia as User:Jackthompson.

1 Archives
2 New article
3 External Links
4 Thompson still claiming to be on the Strickland Suit
5 Wanted to say, better article...
6 Dave Grossman alliance
7 Metalgearsolid.org
8 JT sues Florida Bar again?
9 Bibliography
10 Ambiguity with Jack Thompson (actor)
11 I Think He's Back

[edit] Archives

The following archives are discussion regarding a previous form of the article and are largely not relevant to its current state: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, and Archive 7. Archives since the new version of the article was posted:

[edit] New article

There is a new article up now. Everything in it comes from reputable mainstream sources. I would say that the weakest sources here are either a small local publication like the Toledo Blade, or perhaps a paper like the New York Post, depending on what you think of it. In any case, this level of sourcing will be the minimum expected for the article henceforth.

If a proposed source is not as good or better than these sources, it must be discussed on the talk page first. Without a strong case to specifically use one and general agreement on its inclusion, a lesser source will not be allowed - no LiveJournal. All additions and changes must provide a reference. Anything that doesn't will be summarily reverted. --Michael Snow 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Would it be "libel" to link to some related pages in the "External Links" section? I'm thinking StartTruth.com and gamepolitics.livejournal.com/. Citing them or not, they do provide further information, and I believe it would be a valuble contribution to the article. Fieari 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that they are not "verifiable", especially since Jack got himself banned from livejournal, erasing his gamepolitics comments. I personally think theat they should've stayed (when they existed), but that's another conversation for somewhere. I'm not sure where, in fact.ColdSalad 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using them as a source, I'm saying link to them for further reading. They're on topic, is what I'm saying. Both discuss Jack frequently, even if his direct comments are no longer there. Fieari 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't meet verifiability. Also both site are rather POV. Linking them while not directly affecting the article would give a POV slant against Thompson.--Tollwutig 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

yet linking to his own website isn't giving a pov slant towards him? don't be ridiclous, wikipedia is not resoinble for outside links and libel that might be containted within. 203.112.2.212 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read FLABAR.ORG? It actually slants against him more than anything we could write.--Tollwutig 15:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a link to gamepolitics is valid since it deals with what a big part of the article is about, as well as the fact that they publish the most info on the subject as far as i know. I will not deny it has a POV, if there is such a site that takes the opposite stance it could be added to. Adding links is also about giving as much information as possible, and gamepolitics writes about many things wiki doesn't for notability, verifiability and NPOV reasons.

Starttruth.com is another matter, that is a site set up to combat Thompson's now defunct Stopkill.com, if the latter was present we could present both, but adding what amounts to little more then a "hate site" is unprofessional. SanderJK 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been coverd about 20x already that Gamepolitics.com is not going to be considered a valid source because it is technically a message board on Liverjournal. Any links like that would be removed summarily by Michael Snow. Thankfully Dennis usually links his sources in the article so it's easy to go out and get the mainstream source.--Tollwutig 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize blogs are not valid sources for wikipedia by wiki rules, and i respect that (though i do not necissarily agree). However, we are not talking about adding information from the blog to the page, we are redirecting people who have come here to the source with the most up to date information about an a field closely related and completely intertwined with this articles subject. If you are reading about Jack Thompson, there is a good chance you want to learn more about events regarding the Gaming Industry & Politics. Not to mention the fact that many events dealing with Jack Thompson have started or have become involved with that site. It is of note that the current article does not mention the site once, even though the majority of his fame and infamy comes from his behavings on that site. SanderJK 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur - it's a good primary source. It certainly has its faults but its mere presence on livejournal is not one of them. As stated before, I think this blind obsession with certain types of sources and unwarranted rejection of others is harmful and ignorant. It's all about context and intent. I would not rely on Gamepolitics.com for a scholarly analysis of the industry but it certainly has significant credibility as a popular voice in the gaming industry. --ElKevbo 15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although it shouldn't read "where Thompson posts many of his press releases", because Dennis almost always deletes them now, he's tired of Thompson spamming his forum... Jabrwock 20:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you personally, but as shown previously due to the blog nature, Michael Snow doesn't seem to want it used or has not in the past, he has vanished from here recently. I also agree that GP is a great primary source for Political Gaming issues. Maybe a a link to GP's wiki article would suffice? Since it then would link to GP itself.--Tollwutig 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's important to distinguish between using GP and linking to it. With an external link, the reader can judge the site on their own. --Maxamegalon2000 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The gamepolitics story on wiki is a) badly written. b) 90% about Jack Thompson. It would be weird to link to a article about subject when the main page on subject makes no mention of it. Also, i was not under the impression that we needed approval from Michael Snow to do anything just consensus. SanderJK 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur on both points. A link to GP is appropriate in the right context. And we don't need Michael Snow or anyone else's explicit permission. --ElKevbo 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Snow has the backing of the wiki-foundation as he was asked to rewrite the article post lawsuit threat. He has already shown if necessary he will revert anything not properly sourced, and can get by with a 3RR. I'm not disagreeing with you on a personal level just being devil's advocate in hopes that we don't have to go back to extreme strict scrutiny.--Tollwutig 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If Snow has the backing and authority of the foundation then it needs to be clearly stated. There is obvious confusion on this point and even administrators don't know about this. Without such a clear statement he looks like an editor run amok creating and enforcing his own arbitrary standards. I'm sure he's acting in good faith and my issue is with the foundation giving someone responsibility and authority to singlehandedly take over an article without publicly backing or identifying that person. If there has been such an announcement, please point me to it because I (and others) have completely missed it. --ElKevbo 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson still claiming to be on the Strickland Suit

A lawyer for the victims' families said the Supreme Court's refusal to grant an appeal set the stage for what could be the nation's first trial over killings blamed on video games, perhaps as early as January. "No one has ever before survived a motion to dismiss, so we're excited," said attorney Jack Thompson of Miami. Court rejects appeal in Alabama suit blaming game for slayings -The Associated Press Jabrwock 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I hope this gets back to Judge Moore. Maybe Thompson will get some kind of reprimand.--Tollwutig 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an explicit claim by Thompson that he is still a party to or directly involved in this case. It could just as easily be slipshod journalism or merely poor writing on the part of the AP. --ElKevbo 16:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

True. Wouldn't surprise me though, if he had, because he still spams GamePolitics about "his" case, "his" clients, and "his" lawsuit. But I guess we'll need a major source to quote him on that before putting it up. Jabrwock 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. Thompson was quoted by Yahoo news/Gamespot:

Thompson removed himself from the case in November, 2005, after defense attorneys asked Fayette County circuit judge James Moore to remove the lawyer for violations of legal ethics... A defiant Thompson today said, "I am counsel for all of the plaintiffs, they are still my clients, I was the one who won the First Amendment argument in the hearing on November 3, 2005, which trial record was what was appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, and I fully expect to be in the courtroom trying the case when it is tried." GTA killer case clears hurdle Jabrwock 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

oh, and props to mazinger_z for finding it and posting it on GamePolitics. Jabrwock

I could of sworn he tried to remove himself, but got kicked of? IanC 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Oh and he is still claiming hes on it....

Correct. The judge started getting ticked at him for violating the gag order, so Thompson requested that he be excused. The judge denied that request, and revoked his Pro Hac Vice instead, effectively kicking him off the case and preventing him from practicing in Alabama at all. 207.47.184.113 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted to say, better article...

Much more accurate and objective synopsis of Thompson. More relevant info, more citations (important), and less commentary or irrelevant focus on his continued, rampant trolling of various blogs like some twelve-year-old. Shows exactly who he is, what he's about and what he's been involved with. His antics are also detailed on side articles, so if anyone wants to find out how much of a troll he is, they can. Could use more results from the lawsuits, however... 151.159.200.136 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Grossman alliance

This has been removed because "gamepolitics.com isn't a valid source either":

Thompson has also been allied with anti-video game violence author and military science academic Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman [1].

I think "allied" is too vague a term to use; so, if this information is restored, it should be presented more clearly.

But, a bit more than five and a half minutes into an MP3 of Jack Thompson's appearance on Phyllis Schlafly Live (dated "03-11-06"; I assume that's 11 March 2006, not 3 November 2006 or 6 November 2003), Jack Thompson describes Lt. Col. Grossman as "one of our experts in our Alabama case; and he—he file—filed an affidavit for us, along with three other experts, who said that, but for the video-game training—that this teenager would not have been able to kill these cops"; this comes about two minutes after Thompson mentions the "lawsuit on behalf of three police officers' families, the loved ones" of "police officers [who] were shot and killed by a teenager who literally trained on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City to kill them".

It may be that filing an affidavit on Thompson's side is an indicator of some form of alliance; and this is Thompson's own words (though, of course, he could be in error). I got to that MP3 from this Talk page on 15 March 2006.

President Lethe 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text because, well, gamepolitics.com isn't a valid source, but if the user had cited the interview, I probably wouldn't have removed it. That being said, I agree that "allied" isn't the right word, especially if Grossman was only one of four experts who only filed an affidavit. --Maxamegalon2000 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, your reason for removing the text is bullshit. However, I don't disagree with the removal of this text as I just don't see how it's particularly relevant, important, or interesting. As others have noted, this article is growing in size and we need to be selective in what is included. --ElKevbo 13:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree with your critique of my reason. For the time being, however, I'm more than happy to try and maintain the high standard User:Michael Snow has requested. --Maxamegalon2000 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

this is the relevance - Dave Grossman is one of the leading figures in the US anti-games violence movement and certainly is more identified with the movement than Eugene F. Provenzo, who is given 3-4 lines in the article. Bwithh 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done any research on this particular claim, but it sounds to me like Jack Thompson's association with Grossman is more cursory and specific to this incident, whereas Thompson and Provenzo have collaborated on articles and such. I may be wrong. --Maxamegalon2000 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metalgearsolid.org

As important as I think the account is, I think we really need stronger sources for it. The news story doesn't even mention Thompson, and, as a primary source, metalgearsolid.org itself cannot be used as a source until it is used by another source. I just thought I'd give some time before I feel I have to remove it. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Although i would like to see it included, the current size gives it undue weight. It certainly shows off many character traits, but he is not in any way involved beyond the email he sent. If it was sourced it could be included as a single paragraph, which is the same almost all other activism details get. SanderJK 00:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping someone would be able to find a reliable source for it, but I couldn't find anything, so I'm going to remove it. --Maxamegalon2000 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JT sues Florida Bar again?

Can anyone find a credible source for this? He spammed GP with a press release to the Florida Supreme Court, saying he'd sued the Florida Bar in federal court today. Judge Moreno is handling the case. Jabrwock 21:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bibliography

Why is the book "Out of Harm's Way" listed (by itself) in the Bibliography section? As far as I can tell, it isn't even referenced anywhere. --ElKevbo 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's used as a reference now. --Maxamegalon2000 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Any objections to me (or anyone else) deleting the Bibliography section? I don't see a need to list the source in two different places (Bibliography and References). --ElKevbo 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Maxamegalon2000 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity with Jack Thompson (actor)

The other Jack Thompson is an exceptionally well known Australian film actor who's been around for years and made a large number of films. Would it not be more appropriate to make him the central [Jack Thompson] article? Or at least, make [Jack Thompson] redirect to the Jack Thompson (disambiguation) page? How notable is this lawyer, exactly? Stevage 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm somewhat familiar with the lawyer and not at all with the actor, so I'm not really sure. I know there's never been any talk of making the actor the subject of the main article, but for a while Jack Thompson did lead to a disambiguation page. Just based on the subject matter, I would guess that most people who look for the "Jack Thompson" article are thinking of the lawyer; he's probably the most prominent video game critic in the United States right now, and certainly one of the most hated figures in the video game Internet community. I wouldn't oppose moving the attorney article back to Jack Thompson (attorney) and redirecting to the disamb page again; it would be nice to have a perspective from someone who's more interested in the actor. --Maxamegalon2000 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the actor should be the primary page, but the fact that the attorney is basically unknown to people outside the US indicates the American-centric bias of the way it was. When I initially got involved, I made the disambiguation page the first port of call, and it really ought to stay that way. I note that of the recently created links in articles to plain Jack Thompson (old ones were already cleaned up), both the actor and the attorney were represented. --Michael Snow 01:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)