Talk:Jack Thompson (activist)/Archive 4

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

Game Proposal Cancelled
[http://joystiq.com/entry/1234000743063662/]. Looks like he's gone back on his word. Edits to reflect this, please? --Breathstealer 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Done, but really: . --Maru (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

a shame
This article is just a collection of counterpoint editorials. I expected an encyclopedia article. What a shame. -- &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.162.205 (talk &bull; contribs) 12:33, 2005 October 17.


 * And this is where you come in, if you feel that the article has it's faults. Then you can help edit it. Good luck. :) -- Havok (T/C) 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

 * "Despite the failure of the Paducah lawsuit, Thompson has continued to pursue in court the makers of violent video games. For example, he has attempted to link the Columbine High School massacre and the Washington Sniper to first-person shooters, in the latter making various claims regarding God mode (despite the fact that such a mode does not exist in the game) and the zoom function of Halo's sniper rifle and pistol. He has frequently attacked Rockstar, linking Rockstar North's Manhunt game and Grand Theft Auto series to a wide variety of murders, particularly those involving vehicles or weapons other than firearms."

This needs to be clarified I think, but I don't know enough about the details to do it myself. Is Halo the game that Jack incorrectly claimed had a "God Mode" when he was making reference to Columbine and DC Sniper cases? Or was this specific to the DC Sniper one? Maybe that second sentence just needs to be rewrote; the first reference to "first person shooters", followed by the "despite the fact that such a mode does not exist in the game", then finally mentioning Halo is a bit confusing. --Jayhawk88 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right... it never mentions what game has no "God mode." Maybe there was another comment clarifying that, but it was removed or changed, for another reason? We might want to remove that sentence until we have enough information to clarify it, because right now, it makes no sense. --Wikivader 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that John Lee Malvo's attorney's made the HALO case themselves (along with HALO, they mentioned The Matrix video game and a few others that had a sniper mode). Slung 17:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I think the neutrality of this article seriously needs to be disputed. There's some particularly powerful language in the correspondance section. Likewise, I think we need to add the 'Current Event' boilerplate warning as well. --Orang55 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That section in particular strikes me as someone attempting to legitimize their venomous statements by speaking in a firm, factual-sounding way. Though many of the facts regarding Mr. Thompson embarass him, no amount of evidence justifies putting this much bile in an encyclopedia. I think the Correspondence section could be pared down considerably without the article suffering. It ought to be enough to include in a small paragraph something along the lines of "Thompson has gained a reputation online for dealing with opponents by ridiculing and/or threatening them with legal action." A massive bulleted list seems a bit excessive. --198.166.245.175 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason Jack even has his own page be due to the fact that he go seeking media attention by lashing at the games industry in a most contraversial (and quite stupid) way as well as being outspoken against it (in ways many deem fabricated and idiotic). As such, I don't see a problem with netizens calling him out for what he is. I mean, why should he be more important than other lawyers in general, or politicians who work against the games industry as that he should get a spotlight such as this (which to remind you is exactly what he seek). Jack want to get into the "history pages"? I say fine. Here you go. But the netizens write this one particular history book. And as such, they should have a say as to the nature of this person which appears in it. All in all, if you so disapprove, then wiki should remove Jack from its pages altogether. Why should he be catered to and get the attention, if the netizens don't get to have their say on him? Blank him out entirely as the inconsequential ant that he is. --82.80.1.104 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein


 * The fact that wikis are created by netizens is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a comprehensive archive of facts, NOT a forum for the expression of the netizen point of view. Being the authours of an encyclopedia doesn't grant us the right to cram our personal feelings in with the facts, regardless of how valid these feelings may be. It defeats the point of an encyclopedia. --198.166.245.175 14:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Since I am definitely not alone on this, I am disputing the POV of this article, and have added the appropriate boilerplate text to the article.  The article needs to be completely rewritten and protected for the time being.  This is ridiculous.   --Orang55 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree with you as well, which is why I was working on the article around the time you added the POV template. --silsor 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article is far from a NPOV, especially after your edits, silsor. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "correspondence" and "typical assertions" sections are the worst. Other than that, the external links needs a second trimming pass and the article needs to be refactored. --silsor 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The sole reason for this page to exist is his behavior. So you want to remove the links which demonstrates said behavior? Also, if you want to be so documented, this is documentations. In addition, those are FACTS that he is, if to use better words: fabricating lies, twisting truths, throwing slander, sueing on left and right people who disagree with him, calling people deregatory names and comparing them to hitler and to be simple and honest: being a complete retarded jackass. Suck it down and face the truth, or vaporize the page entirely. You know, I start to doubt your motives. Maybe you are Jack's biased crones. Maybe you are jack himself. It would fit his style to do this. Oh and if someone jump with the IP excuse and I have to explain newbies WTF is a proxy one more time... I'll sue you under extreme retardation and claim you should be banned from the Internet as that you obviously not smart enough to be allowed unsupervisied access to it and your presence is harmful. You know what, forget it. I AM going to start protesting for his removal. The less records of this baboon on the internet the better, he doesn't deserve it. He's not Hitler, he's not a mob boss. He's just a low life, wannabe-evil in the simplest form, there's nothing unique about him. It's better to invest these bytes for activists trying to save the ocean layer or something that's actually important and consequential to our and our kid's future than a failed lawyer gone berzerk on the most stupid things ever. --82.80.1.104 19:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein


 * I repeat: This is an encyclopedia. I strongly believe that Jack Thompson is a scab and a wastrel, but the whole point of an encyclopedia is to be objective. I'm actually very impressed with the edits that have been made in the past few hours, most of which Silsor seems to be responsible for (I tip my hat to him). They manage to demonstrate the kind of dreadful man Thompson is by using only well-documented facts, instead of the vague statements that were in the Correspondence section before. That's actually much more effective. Don't get so worked up, because I'm pretty sure most of us are on the same side of the issue itself. We just need to excercise sense and restraint for the good of Wikipedia and its credible reputation. 198.166.245.175 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


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


 * We need an article about him because he's famous. The link trimming I was talking about is for links that are relevant to the discussion but not important enough to be included in the article for various reasons (for example, some blogger's random rant against Jack Thompson, or a web page that contains only the words "true asshole" over a background image of Jack (this one was real), or somebody's copy of their email correspondence with him which only rehashes topics covered in the article and in other correspondences).  You might get along better if you weren't so angry :) silsor 21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * After several decades, using high words and pacifist methods while seeing "the problem" (IRL and internet retardecy in general) still out at large, you kind of get worn down and decide that capital punishment might just be the perfect solution. I'm no racist, I dislike fanatical extremists and religeous types, but quite frankly, I'm also very tired of "shit". I spent a very good long time (years) in a place where trash talk is dominant, among other bad circles. But like evil, at the end you get bored, understand it's just dumb as hell and outgrow it. Sadly, for some people, they're too far down the lane and too few decades left to live to realise this simple fact. - The Liberal who would fight to the death to defend your basic human right to beat the living shit out of your neighbor for peeping into your doughter's bedroom. 82.80.1.104 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein

Factual error

 * "There is no evidence of any commercial game being used for this purpose by military forces anywhere in the world."

Actually, you're forgetting about Marine Doom (its probably no longer used, really...) and Steel Beasts, a tank simulator game that is used by many armed forces. --DoomBringer 01:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But are those really considered commercial games? The "Steel Beasts" used by the military was apparently different from the commercial version, and Marine Doom is just a mod of the original doom. And more importantly, I don't think there's any real evidence that the games are actually used to "desensitize" soldiers, as Thompson says. The Marine Doom Wikipedia article states that Marine Doom was used to to teach military tactics, and improve military thinking and decision making skills... or something like that. There's no proof that "removing the inhibition to kill" was ever the purpose of them. Still, I don't really know if the comment you quoted should stay... but it isn't exactly false information, as far as I can tell. --Wikivader 03:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let us get real here. Actual military simulators are far more complicated and "technical" than playing flight simulator or doom. If it's a tank or a plane simulator, for one thing, the "soldier-player" sits inside a frame built like the cockpit/hud/etc. of one. He has to pull levers and push buttons and what not. It's not like running around an avatar via keyboard and yelling "headshot" (*chuckles*). And those which don't teach orientation in a vehicle teach strategic intelligence, which is what they used video games for as they became advanced enough. Again, let us be real about this. Last time I checked, soldiers didn't "train" on video games, they didn't play doom in order to learn how to operate a wide array of firearms, vehicles and "lose the inhibition to kill". They are going through a course of indoctrination in classes. They're being taken to the field into fabricated towns with cardboards and conducting live fire drills. They goto shooting galleries and pump bullets untill their rifle becomes their arm's extension. They get educated, on-field, how to dismantle, reassemble, load, aim, resist the fire recoil and etc. firearm handling involved issues. They have the Sarge yell in their ears non-stop obscenity and provokations and threats while they engage live fire towards make belief enemies as they crawl through trenches. They LIVE the experience. And this is something no video game (except VR-grade maybe?) can accomplish. And that's how you desensitize them. That's how you really teach and train to kill. Not through playing GTA and running down prostitutes using a car avatar and the arrow botton, or whatever Jack's rambling on about. --82.80.1.104 07:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein


 * Not to spoil the vibe you've got going on here, but the game Full Spectrum Warrior was pretty much a verbatim version of a US Army training simulator intended to teach tactic in urban combat operations. America's Army was a recruitment tool and I'm sure I remember at least one other game which used to be a military trainer.  But, agreed, suppressing the inhibition to kill was never a motive for their use. Tyrhinis 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Partially right, there were some minor differences between the two versions. And no, not VR-Grade, not today's level of VR-Grade anyway. 68.225.242.19 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Tyrhinis, how does that spoil my "vibe"? Allow me to quote myself: "And those which don't teach orientation in a vehicle teach strategic intelligence, which is what they used video games for as they became advanced enough." that is as far as Full Spec. Warr. is concerned. As for American's Army, I have no problem with it being part of the indoctrination process, or recruitment tool as you call it. It's all the same to me. My main argued point remains valid : these are games, you push buttons, at most they teach better strategic thinking, they don't actually TRAIN one as how to ACTUALLY pick up a firearm, handle it and use it for killing (although, for just squeezing the trigger, presuming the saftey is off and the weapon is in perfect condition, it doesn't take much to kill someone) and remove their inhibition to commit murder. To get that kind of training one has to actually acquire a firearm and then USE it, in real life. To actually train for killing and using weapons you MUST LIVE THE EXPERIENCE. Games teach you to push buttons, information deposites (books, movies, internet) can teach you about weapons - their parts, how they work. But to actually train, to actualy gain intimate knowledge and ability, to get the "feel" and really know what you do, only by using your own hands you can gain such experience (ever noticed, wondered, why RPGs are all about "experience", why high level full of xp points mean so much more than a newbie and what the world truely means?). Frankly, if Thompson stood infront of me right now the only thing inhibiting me from killing him is that it's illegal. And the only drive I have for killing him would be his repeated innane drivel and absolute moronic actions. I believe he's a low life scum of the earth which does not deserve to share grounds with the rest of us. It has nothing to do with any game I had played. Nor did any of them taught me how to kill him. I just know that if I punch him enough or use a knife to stab him (and I know where to inflict most harm, suprisingly, from reading medical books about human physiology, hey Jack go burn books) he will die, as much as I know how to chew my food. Comes naturally. 82.80.1.104 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein


 * Look, regardless of whether games have been based on military training tools or not, the army doesn't train you to be a killer, it trains you to be a soldier. This is the same in all recognized nations. Ever heard of educational video games? A military training-based video game is an educational tool. It gives you insight in the training of a soldier. Whether one feels this is propaganda or not is up for debate, but it cannot be labaled as "bad". 69.159.111.100 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Phil


 * I'm not sure I entirely agree with that.
 * Lets pin-point it for further accuracy.
 * The army train soldiers, pending on their qualifications and its requirements for a plethora of duties.
 * Some Video Games may be a part of a certain duty training course. 82.80.1.104 23:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein

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

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

That could have been meant to be in reference to the issue with Janet Reno, and his claims that she was a closet lesbian.

Intro
I think the begining of this article needs to be change to better reflect that Thompson is against violence, Also Islam does not condone the killing of innocent people.

Prodego 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The change you propose for the introduction would be a pretty minor one, and I certainly don't think anyone's going to stop you from making it if you feel it necessary. So go for it, I suppose.


 * As far as Islam is concerned, the article merely points out the comments that Thompson has publically made; it doesn't support or condemn them. Miz 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is neutral
Just because some people posted information without sources doesn't mean this should suddenly be considered non-neutral. There is an edit button, use it and leave a summary of your changes. Also, don't expect DNA sample on faxes to consider a news article legit. Everything at wikipedia is based on articles and the press, if a few reputable websites are currently reporting the same story consider it legit until demonstrated otherwise.

This article is much more neutral than various other topics at wikipedia that have not been slapped with a non-neutral tag. Use the Edit button, that's all.

69.159.111.100 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Phil


 * It's been edited considerably over the past several hours and become a LOT more neutral, but believe me, when that tag first got slapped on, it was an extremely and blatantly biased article. Whether or not it's been fixed up enough I'm not sure, but the initial decision to attach the tag was justified at the time that it was done. 198.166.245.175 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's come a long way in just a few hours.  The "Modest Proposal" section still needs some work, but I probably wouldn't have slapped the NPOV tag on the article if it were in the condition it is now.  Nonetheless, I think the article still needs a little more work before it's taken down.--Orang55 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack's Contact Information
Is now staring in bright red at the bottom of his personal page stopkill.com. [edit] silsor is right, this turned into discussion of my opinion of wikipedia itself, which is of no relevance, so I'm editing it out.

82.80.1.104 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein


 * The real question here is not how accessable his personal information is or how accessable this article makes it. The issue is do you put personal contact information in an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. At least not in any encyclopedia I've never seen. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO, no difference than making available other celebrity or notorious people's contacts, their residence, their agent's contact or a support/fan group. Whatever is the reason you wish to contact, the ideal is same - CONTACT, getting in touch, reaching someone. Doesn't matter why, it's the accessability which matters. And since this person has placed himself willingly (even pushing to get there?) into the spotlight, and himself publicizes his contact information, then why not include it? Because it's supposedly an encyclopedia? This is a record, recording, archive, nothing more. An internet archive, which evolves and updates. For the time being, while it's a "hot" issue, it is relevant to list his contacts. When he expire, you may list his burial grounds as well, as I do believe is common practice in encyclopedias. 82.80.1.104 07:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein

Removing vocal opposition articles
I was dismayed to find a link gone and even by going through all the history (tedious task) I can't find when it was removed. However, it still shows up on my stats. I don't write for gaming sites or gamers, but for those who are confused about who Jack Thompson really is.

Mainstream media makes him seem to be some sort of crusader against all evil. Gamers see him for what he is. Sick. Twisted. Vile. No need to elaborate. Maluka 06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said to you earlier, I just don't think that your blog posting has anything to add to the article. Your reason for adding it is, you said, "my readers are more mainstream and i'm enlightening them to who he really is".  This would be a reason for you to add a link FROM your blog TO the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. silsor 04:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People here really do listen to logic. Explain away: why should your editorial be linked from here? silsor 04:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

First, it's not a blog. It may contain things that came from other sites, but it's not written in the same style, making it (from the feedback I get) a fun read, whereas so many are just cut and dried with no humor injected. Maluka
 * I started editing because the article was really biased against Thompson yesterday, and I worked on it according to a policy we have called WP:NPOV, and a guideline called be bold. What about my question? silsor 04:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I got a system for staying out of people's ways: I don't touch the article, I just put my suggestions/oppinions/findings/etc. in the discussion.
 * This way, no one can claim I'm being disruptive and have a reason for deleting me or otherwise.
 * After all, I'm only discussing. ^_^
 * And if any of it seem acceptable, the owners/admin/whoever are free to follow and apply on the actual article.
 * Your article, your baby, I can only throw a word or two on the way, it's yours to raise on the end. 82.80.1.104 15:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Ori Klein

I just entered a long reply and it's gone, the talk page has been changed and I'm steaming mad. Of course it was biased. There's only ONE entry defending him. If you had any inkling at all about the mad Jack Thompson, if you've ever been on the receiving end of one of his inane emails, you'd know why this is biased.

Your question? To add another voice in opposition. Do you really think people read everything here? Some only go to that part because that's what they want to hear. You say you're a part-time gamer. You must not know jack. Take that both ways. No one had a problem with it until you came along. It's amazingly popular. I don't know what else to say. Maluka 06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is not here to tell people what they want to hear. It is not here to promote your blog (which does not stop being a blog simply because you have a unique style). It is here to provide objective facts about Jack Thompson, with just enough context to highlight their significance. If you wish to edit Wikipedia articles, you MUST accept that someone is likely to edit, revert, or completely remove your work. That's just part of the nature of how this website functions. Miz 05:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Then what the hell is it for? It's not promoting my site, that's for sure. The facts are objective but then that's in the eye of the reader. I didn't originally come here to be an editor, but to add things that would spice up the page. I didn't touch anything anyone else did, only my own stuff. Maluka 06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I don't get yelled at for clearing up the name confusion and deleting things embarassing to me today.

Maluka, I believe it is bad form to re-insert the link to your page without first establishing a consensus on this page. I am opposed to it's re-insertion for the reasons listed by silsor and Miz. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)