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, I don't think I need to point out WP:NOR to you --AI 01:50, 23 July 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)

I am still waiting for Modemac to provide attribute his claims that RFW is a hate group. And remember WP:NOR. Give me solid reference that an authoritative source has called RFW a hate group. --AI 01:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My opinionated statement above is what I stand by: I believe Religious Freedom Watch is a hate group because it exists solely to "dead agent" critics of Scientology. Excuse me for having an opinion about this. --Modemac 11:49, 23 July 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. Consequently, there is no doubt in my mind that your attribution of comments is spurious and are nothing but groundless attacks on Prof. Touretzky's name; please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for the official Wikipedia policy on the matter.

Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?

(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)

Looks like I misremembered - they're backed by Microsoft and the tobacco industry, not the CoS - David Gerard 15:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this. --AI 03:30, 25 July 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)

The dispute concerns other contributors claim that my references/sources are spurious and that I am engaged in "groundless attacks" on the subject of this article. --AI 22:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert

User:Joolz, please explain your revert.[2] --AI 23:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is, of course, "Who died and left you in charge, AI?" --Calton | Talk 23:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are you Joolz? What does your personal comment have to do with the subject of this article? --AI 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm glad that you've decided to talk now, I, and several other others have reverted your deletion of what I, and others, believe to be legitimate comments which should not be removed. As for Calton replying, it's perfectly legitimate, and indeed encouraged for people to join in discussions on talk pages, that's what they're there for! -- Joolz 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all I have been in discussion on this before you showed up (See my comments above). Personal comments are not legitimate comments. I have already referred to appropriate policies and guidelines. Please explain why you would restore[3] personal comments to a talk page. I am still waiting for a response to my questions above which are not affected by my removal of the personal comments. David Gerard has not answered. --AI 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Show me what policy allows you to remove user's legitimate comments, I see none. You've engaged in a number of discussions with a whole number of different people over this, nobody else, including some experienced wikipedians shares your opinion that you can remove this comments. I will again reiterate why I reverted your removal of the, as you call them "personal comments". I believe the comments should not be removed because they are legitimate, they are certaintly not personal attacks. -- Joolz 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you did not read my message?[4] --AI 01:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I've already responded to that message, so I will refer you back to it (it's still on my talk page). WP:RPA explicitely states "Pointing out that a user is violating a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed", and furthermore it is a disputed guideline, not a policy. I've seen nobody else remove comments on talk pages in this way, nobody is agreeing with you, as far as I can see, I suggest you think whether it's really appropriate for you to keep removing these comments, the consensus is to keep them on the talk page. -- Joolz 01:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My attribution is not spurious. RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. They have done extensive investigations into the individuals listed on their site. Have you even looked at the David Touretzky section on their site? --AI 01:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

RFW-2

AI,

I have carefully re-read the section on Religious Freedom Watch re. Prof. Touretzky as a consequence of your note. Plenty of claims are made on that site, but there are no third-party external sources cited in those articles as to where the information presented came from or how it was investigated. If it is "original research" by Religious Freedom Watch without referencial support from other sources, that would still show the integrity of the source to be poor and would still not be acceptable as material on Wikipedia. Verifiable studies always quote their original sources of information and cross-reference to existing trusted sources, and RFW does not. Furthermore, the tone of the material presented is derisory and lacks objectivity, which is generally a poor sign when considering academic documents. I am sorry, but I contend that the facts of the matter still dictate that the source fails to meet these basic criteria of verifiability and integrity, thus I still maintain that it is not a reputable source of data. One cannot trust information produced out of thin air.

Regards, NicholasTurnbull 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(I do hope this does not come across as a "personal comment"; it is most certainly not intended as such, my apologies in advance if it does so.)

RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. They have attributed many sources, but in this case they did not properly validate the IRC logs. That does not discredit them entirely. Also, notice I did not use the word YOU in this discussion to explain my point. There is no reason all Wikipedia users cannot conduct themselves in the same way. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you for addressing me in a civil manner. --AI 02:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

User:128.2.222.123 (ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu)

22:09, 21 July 2005 [5] Anon user contributed but also used POV in modification of content regarding 'bomb making instructions.' Anon also removed scientific director and Informatics reference to DST. I corrected some of Anon's work with a clear explantion in my edit summary.[6] --AI 05:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote

In my opinion and if I was Touretzky, I would not want to promote such an ignorant quote. But I think it should be left there, because it demonstrates the mentality of David S. Touretzky :) --AI 22:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaplan quotes

"I'm not taking Dr. Touretzky's view of the First Amendment as evidence. His testimony presupposes a view of the scope of the First Amendment on which he is not an expert, which is not a proper subject for testimony and which is ultimately for me and appellate courts to decide." - Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, July 25, 2000 MPAA V. 2600 "There is no doubt that yelling 'fire' in crowded theatre is something that is problematic and probably impedes expression by certain twisted individuals." - Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, July 25, 2000, 2000 MPAA V. 2600 A "wikipedia contributor" tried to censor these highly relevant, undisputable and properly attributed quotes on July 29, 2005 01:15.[7]. Do not attempt to edit this posting of mine. Any such action will be counted as vandalism and a violation which will be used as evidence. --AI 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

These quotations are, in fact, from the trial, but are of little relevance to the article at hand. The first is merely a judge stating the well-established rule of law that judges, and not computer scientists, decide what the law means; its inclusion has no relevance to David Touretsky's professional or personal merit. The second is another comment by the same judge on a matter of constitutional law, again not particularily related to Dr. Touretsky. It is plainly obvious to me that AI (or someone working in concert with him) has gone over the trial transcripts with a fine-tooth comb looking for those quotations which will serve to cast Dr. Touretsky in the worst possible light. Since these quotations are clearly intended for that purpose, they are not merely irrelevant but also violative of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, since they tend to prejudice the reader against the topic of the article. To include these quotes without including, for example, "Well, Dr. Touretzky, let me just tell you that this was illuminating and important. I was hoping we were going to hear something like this through the whole trial. I appreciate your having come." is evidence of clear intent to create bias. As such, the quotes should be removed. Kelly Martin 19:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)