Talk:David S. Touretzky/Archive 1

POV

The Church of Scientology (or "independent" members of the Church, as it claims) has been engaging in a long-term effort to slander discredit Professor David Toruetzky. Why? Because Professor Touretzky has worked in support of free speech, and in the process has been considered one of the most important "enemies" of Scientology.

Proof of the bias of this article can be seen in the links posted to pages dedicated to smearing Professor Touretzky -- especially the one by the so-called "Religious Freedom Watch," a Scientology-based hate group.

Do a Web search for the name "David Touretzky" and you will come up with some very interesting results. Note especially his efforts (including court testimonies) opposing the RIAA and their attempts to ban DeCSS...and, again, his efforts against Scientology. Professor Toruetzky's exposure of the Narconon organization, for instance, are largely responsible for that organization being rejected by the California school system in early 2005. (See the Narconon article for details of that.)

But rather than bore you with the details, I would rather focus upon this article itself. Namely, the fact this article was written as a blatant attempt to smear and slander Professor Toruetzky. --Modemac 09:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modemac, you call Religious Freedom Watch a hate-group. What reference are you basing your labeling of Religious Freedom Watch as a hate group on, or is it just your opinion? --AI 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're certainly an operation of the Church of Scientology --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how does that make RFW a hate group? What is Modemac's source for labeling RFW as hate group? --AI 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't make that statement as fact in an article, he's entitled to state it as an opinion. As it happens I agree that all these revolting little groups that go around harrying individuals who oppose the activities of the scientology cult corporation are quite aptly described as hate groups. That's what they're up to, destroying individuals in the name of their money-making religion.

And that's my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for Modemac to provide a reference of source, and not Wikipedia contributor opinions from those who share his POV. --AI 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of a hate group says: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations upon spurious grounds, despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others." Anyone with half a brain who looks at the "Religious Freedom Watch" pages will certainly see that their claims are spurious at best, that they advocate hostility and/or violence against their chosen targets, and that they are a ridiculous excuse for "freedom" advocates at best. And yes, that's my opinion. So there. Nyaahhhh. --Modemac 09:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modemac, there is no evidence of advocating hostility and/or violence on the part of RFW.--AI 03:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFW

I've done a Web search, a Usenet search, and a second Usenet search for the origins of this quote you claim that Professor Touretzky has given, and I can't find it. All that is listed are repeated uses of the quote by users making slanderous accusations, claiming that it is his quote. Therefore, I am asking you to provide the actual reference to the quote itself and prove that Touretzky actually said it. Thank you for your assistance. --Modemac 11:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• David Touretzky: "She is the former ambassador to Micronesia! and she's black. I should have known. What are all the really st00000pid congresswomen black?"[1]

That quote is based on Religious Freedom Watch's claim of usenet irc chat logs. --AI 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is a "usenet chat log"? I use Usenet fairly regularly, and it does not ring any bells. If it refers to IRC chat logs, unless recorded, vouched for, and provided by a reliable and known neutral third-party... well, let's just say IRC chat logs are easily forged. And given Scientology's previous activities, a minor forgery against an enemy is exceedingly plausible. --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As such, it's from an utterly unreliable source. I suggest you need more discernment in your choice of reference quality --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please describe what you mean by "utterly unreliable source" and provide references. Also maybe you can provide a reference to Wikipedia policy to demonstrate how you decided "quality" and what is and is not a source. --AI 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is cite sources. All we seem to have here is a claim that there exists a "usenet chat log" (no such thing exists, incidentally) showing that Touretzky authored the quote in question. There is no independent way to check this, and it doesn't seem particularly plausible (a PhD who spells the word "stupid" with five zeroes?) The only source we have has a known vested interest in portraying Touretzky in the worst possible light and is affiliated with an infamously mendacious organisation of which Touretzky has long been a critic. Even if the organisation were Touretzky's best friend, however, this would be a single source making an unverifiable claim about the existence of primary source material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The referenced IRC logs, can be verified through IRCOPS and the FBI.

Touretzky has not denied these statements. --AI 03:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The eff bee eye is now monitoring all IRC channels everywhere? You sure you're not confusing the FBI with the Co$? --Phloigd

Actually intelligence agencies from various countries have supercomputers which document every single bit that travels over the internet. But that is another article... --AI 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

AI, speaking as a Computer Science student, a supercomputer that documented every single piece of data across the Internet would be a near impossibility considering the huge volume of data transfer on the Internet compared with the finite amounts of available data storage.

"Religious Freedom Watch" fails to substantiate its claims with adequate referencing to the appropriate documentation or any other form of evidentiary support and is consequently of doubtful veracity. As such, Religious Freedom Watch cannot be considered to be an adequate reference source for claims made on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources for more information on this.

IRC logs are not acceptable as a quotable source and you have not provided third-party evidentiary support that the IRC conversation you describe took place; also, even if the IRC logs could be authenticated as being stated by Prof. Touretzky's username or originating from his computer system, it is trivial to masquerade as another user on IRC and even a verifiable log of such an exchange would prove nothing.

[removed personal comment] (I have also copied this to AI's talk page) --NicholasTurnbull 19:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. RFW's credibility is equivalent or greater than many critics who are attributed as sources for "critic claims" in other controversial articles. --AI 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Purported quote and legal actions

I'd like to see more information in the article's 'Scientology critic' section about this controversy with RFW. What is happenning between David Touretzky and RFW. Has he tried to have the quotes removed? Is there an ongoing case? --AI 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't bring legal action doesn't make an assertion true. --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't David Touretzky an "activist"? --AI 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misspellings

The spelling is "Touretzky". Alternate spellings: Touretsky, Touretzsky, Toruetzky ... any others? I've set up redirects from "David -", "Dave -" and "David S. -" of all of these to this page. --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you catch all the lowercases as well? --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizens Against Government Waste

David Gerard, you write that CAGW is backed by the Church of Scientology? What is the source of this? --AI 21:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template

May I ask why a NPOV warning was posted on the article page? I looked carefully, and all allegations were attributed, with reasonably balanced coverage- the only possible POV infraction I could see might be the bits about 'dead agents' (whatever that is), and even that seem fairly fair. --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because:
Someone was removing and reverting some of my content which was valid. However that dispute has been resolved. Only the quotes are still in dispute because the opposing POV's are uncertain of the credibility of the source. --AI 29 June 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Move to David S. Touretzky

He's almost universally referred to with the middle initial, so I've moved the article there. Now fixing redirects and links - David Gerard 14:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No he isn't. That is your opinion. David Touretzky signs without the S. in his usenet postings and in IRC. His usenet postings and irc sessions can be traced to his computer(s) at CMU. And in those messages he converses with others who know him well, so they are not forgeries.--AI 29 June 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Quotes

Here is the full list of quotes as compiled by religiousfreedomwatch.org

These are not quotes, these are sentences taken out of context from chats, I doubt they qualify as standalone quotes. I'm sure it serves the interest of RFW, but certainly not the interest of Wikipedia. "No wonder Scientology hates the internet" is indeed a quote since it's often part of the signature of Professor Touretzky on alt.religion.scientology. Povmec 03:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation has been made to resolve the ongoing dispute on this page. The actual request can be seen directly at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky. --Modemac 11:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My removing personal attacks and comments is your basis for a dispute regarding this article?! --AI 12:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)