Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Thompson/archive1

Jack Thompson (attorney)

Very well written article, very comprehensive, well referenced, etc. I think this should be a featured article. Sasha Slutsker 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article looks pretty good. Image:JT-bw-enhcontrast.png has issues, however. Probably should not be promoted with the only image lacking authorship and copyright-holder information. Suggest fixing by contacting subject of article or agent and requesting free-license picture. Jkelly 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the re-write, a much stronger article. The references make it hard to refute, yet it still shows just how much of a loon Thompson is. I think the article could use some better seperation of material (sub-section titles), but other than that, very well done. Jabrwock 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jabrwock on all of his points, and strongly favor featured article status. --Maxamegalon2000 23:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a bit concerned about this article. First, the only image it has is currently listed on Wikipedia:Fair use review. Second, it was recently protected under WP:OFFICE (although that should technically have no relevance to FAC). By the way, since the WP:OFFICE was initiated by the subject of the article himself, I am not sure he would be willing to do as Jkelly suggests and be willing to give a free-license picture. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ah. Jkelly 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object, with reservations. Given that this article is a target of vandalism, accusations by both sides of bias, and Jack Thompsons alleged paranoia and heavy-handed legal tactics, I rather not Wikipedia glorify such an unstable and mentally questionable person.--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not glorifying HIM, we are glorifying an article about him (which says all that he does, and says it well.) Also, vandalism isn't that much of a problem, and that might be a reason to not front page it, but it should still be featured, in my opinion. Sasha Slutsker 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced, change to Opposed. I'm still weary of that idiot targeting Wikipedia for some unforseen legal action because of this. The way he twists his legal schooling would be a nightmare if he got wind of this. I'm sure he would consider such a nomination "harassment" or "libel."--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that this article is very well sourced, though if it is featured it might have to be locked down since vandals would love to vandalize this page. --Benhiller 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that all the references still seem to be print sources, even though the guy has a lot of internet notoriety. Now, I'm personally of the opinion that print sources are not necessarily any more reliable than internet sources. Insisting on print sources (which may or may not also be available on the net) seems to me to reflect a stuffy old bias that isn't doing the article any good. I'm not saying include stuff from blogs and such, but websites of reasonable repute should be sufficient for some citations, which I presume would enable article expansion. This also makes it easy for the reader to access and verify the source. A second point: I recall that Jack Thompson specifically denied that the birthdate given is correct. Therefore this should surely be cited, shouldn't it? Everyking 06:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to, say, Gamespot or some other gaming site, it was decided by those higher up that such sites are biased against Jack and therefore not appropriate sources. A lot of people seem to disagree, but right now there's sort of an atmosphere of shrugging our shoulders and working around it. I'm happy with the results. --Maxamegalon2000 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all right, if it's a question of bias I suppose that's acceptable. Everyking 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the references are not all print sources; you seem to have been fooled by the fact that they're all reputable sources, which is exactly what the restrictions were supposed to achieve. Perhaps you might reconsider whether your gut reactions actually coincide with the opinions you claim to hold.

Also, the reason he specifically denied that his birthdate in the article was correct is because at the time, it had been altered by a vandal and gone undetected. I'm not aware that he disputes the one currently given. --Michael Snow 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what you mean by "whether your gut reactions actually coincide with the opinions you claim to hold". Everyking 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you gave an evaluation of the article based on a supposed insistence on print sources, and proceeded to wax eloquent about the "stuffy old bias" involved. This was apparently based on a negative gut reaction to the selection of sources. But in reality, the selection of sources involved a strong emphasis on reputability, a consideration you endorsed. One would think this would have given you a positive impression, but then perhaps you brought some misinformed preconceptions to your evaluation of the article. --Michael Snow 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The article itself is well-enough cited, and conforms to WP:NPOV. But it has a history, even a recent history, of both edit warring and outside legal threats by the subject of the article. It just feels too unstable to promote at this time. If the next six months see the page relatively unvandalized, and relatively stable, I'd support FAC nomination; but not just now. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best way to insulate yorself from legal challenges is to make the article as balanced and well written as possible. If it ever came to Court, a judge would be scratching his head wondering how someone could be complaining after his article was given such a distinction. That would probably end up being the one thing needed to kick it out. Also, whether or not this makes Featured Article is one question; placement on the front page is quite another. I would also recommend that everyone keep to the script when evaluating and not single out subjects. Speculative legal threats are not featured article criteria and asserting someone is litigious can itself be deemed libel. Jtmichcock 18:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't a lawyer, but I certainly am close enough to know that a judge is extremely unlikely to care one whit about FA status if evaluating a lawsuit (whether copyright, libel, COPA, or whatever). In any case, my objection is not any sort of legal advice: I simply do not feel that an article that has a recent history of substantial instability is a good FA candidate. This includes the WP:OFFICE freeze, blanking, rewriting, etc.; along with the actually existing recent legal threats against WP regarding the article (I made/make no claim about whether the subject is litigious: that sounds like too much amateur lawyering on your part, Jtmichcock, I'm afraid... take that in a collaborative spirit, not as a criticism). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, real and not an amateur. Experience litigating the issue too.Jtmichcock 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which issue? (I listed three distinct ones, but that's hardly exhaustive). Still, it strikes me as enormously peculiar that an actual lawyer would claim that a judge would care about FA status for any of the issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libel. That's the only "legal" issue I can see. In terms what the Court will look at, the care with which a particular matter was researched and the amount of effort put into the preparation are critical factors when evaluating whether there was the degree of malice required to sustain a libel suit by a public figure. Jtmichcock 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I threaten wikipedia with legal action, will I get an article about me featured too? --zippedmartin 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given my personal involvement, I don't know if I should "vote" here, and in any case I'm not really ready to support it for featured article status. While it's no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia and I'm pleased with its improvement, I'm not sure that I would necessarily describe it as exemplifying the "very best work" we have. I'm also sympathetic to the concern that featured status is premature, and that a longer track record of stability should be demonstrated in this case. --Michael Snow 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - For the following reasons:

Broward County is discussed but not introduced, try something like "Broward County, a county that banned As Nasty As They Wanna Be, ..."
"Institute for Creative Technologies, which was created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill." gives the impression the institute was actually created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill. Instead try "Institute for Creative Technologies, which Thompson claimed was created by the Department of Defense to help overcome soldiers' inhibition to kill."
The article doesn't explain why Thompson objected to Howard Stern's show.

Otherwise the article is pretty good. Cedars 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These objections still remain unresolved. They are simple actionable objections — I strongly oppose the article being featured without them being addressed. Cedars 00:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]