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)


 * The NCHRA (National Coalition of Human Rights Activists) had a rally on the courthouse steps in Arizona where the president of the NCHRA described the religiousfreedomwatch.com web site as the work of a hate group. (write to NCHRA at NCHRA@hotmail.com) Vivaldi 21:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The NCHRA (http://www.holysmoke.org/nchra ) seems to be a small anti-Scientology group (http://www.holysmoke.org is a anti-Scentology site); their news page (the only one I could get working) http://www.holysmoke.org/nchra/news/news.htm seems to focus on Scientology issues. I don't think their view is particularly relevant. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Scientology has tried the same trick that they pulled in the wake of 9/11 to get their number on television: they've created a front group with exactly the same initials as an existing group to try and create confusion.  See this press release where they refer throughout the whole message to "NCHRA", not revealing until the end that they do not mean the National Coalition of Human Rights Activists, but "National Commission on Human Rights Activists".  It's not a coincidence, of course; look at this press release issued just three days before where they claim that "NCHRA" (by which they mean National Coalition of Human Rights Activists) was founded by "Adolph Hitler" and is "an anti-religious neo-nazzi [sic] front group" which "unchecked ... would strive to achieve another holocaust with their MESSAGE OF HATE." (capitalization in original.)  So, on the 5th, they use the initials NCHRA to refer to the group they hate; three days later they've got their own group with the same acronym and a name only two words different, spouting their own party line.  And then they wonder why people don't trust them... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh lord... I know this is off-topic, but it's too good not to share.  Here's another press release from fake-NCHRA  where they declare Dr. Louis Jolyon West to have won their "first annual NCHRA Human Rights Counter-Achievement Award" out of a pool of candidates comprising "the Mafia, four White Supremacist groups, one Black Supremacist group, and Dr. L. J. West (What's the difference)." (parenthetical comment in original).  The press release rattles off a further barrage of quotes that have no attributions, extremely professional-looking interjections such as "out of his whimsical mind" and concludes "Today, Mr. West continues to cry that CCHR blew his plans to destroy races of mankind, and tries to attack Scientology and other religions that stopped his insane approach and destructive behavior."  Well, golly.  I guess all that research which fake-NCHRA did to make sure that Dr. West was truly the most deserving possible recipient of their award failed to turn up the fact that he died in January of 1999... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:17, 2 October 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?"
 * 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 Neutral point of view and 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 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)
 * RFW is also run by representatives from the Church of Scientology. Their impartiality has been repeatedly called into question, insofar as the only "religious bigots" they target on their site are critics of CoS or ex-Scn's who have spoken out.  I can hardly grant them any more "credibility" than the spurious critics your opponents supposedly cite. - Anonymous 11:15 AM 1 August 2005


 * Being a notable critic is no criterion for or against reliability. The Wikipedia guidelines are Reliable sources especially Reliable sources and Verifiability, especially Verifiability and according to that RFW does not meet encyclopedical requirements for reliability of sources. It can be used as one of several independent sources but it should not be relied upon if it is the only source. --Irmgard 09:57, 12 September 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)


 * Mr. AI, compliment to you. Others try to create a vanity page for Ms. Touretzky, but you come right to the point. If the data provided by the RFW on him or data by Ms. Schwarz in regards to the sex shop invoice and her websites on the subject constantly taken down would be false, why in all world does Mr. Touretzky not sue them? He has money, he could afford an attorney, right? --12.110.19.97


 * Evidence has been collected regarding these allegations which is why people are make these claims about David Touretzky. He apparently thinks he has a better chance of dealing with his "critics" without using the law. --AI 11:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I imagine he doesn't sue because he is a free-speech activist. --Mongreilf 11:29, 16 September 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

User:AI/Touretzky quotes


 * 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)

Isolated quotes from an IRC log are useless except perhaps for bumper stickers. When a purported quote seems to conflict with the known behavior of the subject (as it does here) then the only way to overcome the dispute is to include surrounding context with dates, times and names in order 1) to reveal the reactions of the other people to the statements, 2) to give the other people involved the chance to confirm or deny the alleged events, and 3) to allow the alleged log to be compared to other logs.

This list of quotes seems to have grown since the first time I saw it, but I have no personal recollection of Dr. Touretzky ever having made these remarks. Furthermore it seems unlikely that many of them could have been made without eliciting a noticeable reaction from the many people on IRC who hold opinions strongly opposed to these alleged comments. Yet many of these people also deny ever having heard Dr. Touretzky make such statements.

It is also possible that someone else may have entered IRC assuming Dr. Touretsky's name to plant quotes for just such a log. Such an stunt is trivial to accomplish, though would be unlikely to pass without remark. A careful examination of the logs with a thought to comparing Dr. Touretzky's known IRC habits to those portrayed in the logs might reveal any subterfuge, however.

In the absence of further evidence I can only tentatively conclude that the "IRC log quotes" are illegitimate due to either being forgeries or being so far removed from context as to completely distort their meaning. To wit, not every sentence uttered on IRC is meant to be taken seriously, especially where Scientology is concerned. Vreejack 13 August, 2005

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 Requests_for_mediation. --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. --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 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? --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)

With all due respect, Religious Freedom Watch is an anonymous site that attempts to smear critics of the Church of Scientology. The pages on Touretzky are full of unsubstantiated allegations whose mere utterance qualifies as libel per se. Much of the overheated polemic appearing there refers to snippets quoted without context from what are purported to be IRC logs. The source of the logs is not disclosed and the logs have not been authenticated. For these reasons, Religious Freedom Watch cannot be considered a trustworthy source. Linking to this inflammatory but unsourced material violates Wikipedia's "No personal attacks" policy. Felinity 03:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion about RFW. However, please read WP:NOR. Only a court of law can decide if they are libelous, until then claims of libel are simply allegations which have not been proven. RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. --AI 00:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The key objection remains: it's not a reliable source. --MarkSweep 06:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And the critics sources (xenu.com) are just as or more unreliable. Books by authors such as Jon Atack, etc. I only mention this because the much of the controversy deals with Scientology and it's critics, which David Touretzky is. But that is another discussion. --AI 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That depends - if something is just stated on xenu.net or written by Atack, it sure is no more than an unverified statement from an interested party (though, in the case of Attack (book with lots of quotes and references given) it could mentioned, if correctly attributed to him (Scientology critic and former Scientologist Jon Attack writes in his book 'A Piece of Blue Sky' that ... - better in any case, to refer to Attacks sources. But if xenu.net provides. e.g., a facsimile of a 1951 interview of the FBI with LRH, then this is documented evidence. And when Miller quotes Winters comment on his first Dianetics session and gives the exact reference "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, Joseph A. Winter, 1951" this is verifiable information, which can be part of an encyclopedia text (with reference given, of course - if referring to the quote, it would be Winter as reference, not Miller). --Irmgard 08:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:128.2.222.123 (ammon.boltz.cs.cmu.edu)
22:09, 21 July 2005 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. --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

 * 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)


 * Although I disagree that the quotes are irreleveant, I will concede to temporary removal of the quotes for sake of NPOV. --AI 20:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The first quote provides insight, from a legal point of view, into the controversial nature of David Touretzky's actions and claims concerning certain aspects of his "support" for freedom of speech. The quote is relevant to the sub-section of this article on David Touretzky. Because of it this, I am putting a mention into the article that the judge presiding over the case refused Touretzky's testimony as evidence on grounds that David is not an expert on the first amendment. --AI 20:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the court did, in fact, admit the bulk of Dr. Touretsky's testimony into evidence, it would be factually incorrect for that statement to remain in the article. Since it has already been removed, I am spared the trouble of doing it myself.  Please refrain from inserting it again. Kelly Martin 21:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly if you know more about this then add it to the paragraph to NPOV it, instead of simply removing my contribution. --AI 00:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly already pointed out, and I agree with her, that leaving the quote in the artice would grossly distort the facts. There is no way to balance it out without summarizing the details of the case concerning Touretzky's testimony. I don't think that's necessary, nor is this article the best place for that. --MarkSweep 06:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. --AI 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark, why isn't this article a good place for summarizing the trial, relevant aspects, and including the quotes? --Maru 20:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the trial wasn't in any way about Touretzky, he was merely one of several expert witnesses. The fact that he testified is certainly of interest (and already mentioned in this article), but the details of the trial are more appropriately dealt with in an article on the case itself (MPAA v. 2600). Even in a summary of the trial I don't think the quotes cited above are relevant: no judge wants to hear a witness's opinions about matters of law. The plaintiff's objections and the judge's reaction in this regard are predictable, and what happened with Touretzky happened to other witnesses as well. The same thing would have happened in any other trial too. --MarkSweep 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the sentence Kelly Martin just removed from the article: The judge presiding over the case, Kaplan, stated that Dr. Touretzky is not an expert on the First Amendment, however he did state that Dr. Touretzky's testimony was "illuminating." I see nothing wrong with this statement other than Kelly's (who is Dr. Touretzky's "friend") and MarkSweep's apparent desire to "protect" Professor Touretzky reputation which I have not destroyed. David Touretzky destroyed his own reputation and now is using these dupes to protect himself from further damage. Should I call in some commoners from the village pump to see what they think about Kelly and Mark's activities? :) --AI 01:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Lots of things are wrong with this statement. For one thing, it's not a very good summary of Touretzky's testimony. It's been explained above and below that the judge pointing out that Touretzky was present as an expert witness on technical matters, not as a First Amendment scholar, is highly unremarkable. Singling it out and taking it out of context only serves to distort and introduce bias, as the reader will likely get the impression that the judge was entirely dismissive of Touretzky, which is not what happened. --MarkSweep 01:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The article portrays David as an activist in favor of freedom of speech, so a judge's comment about Touretzky's views are highly remarkable and relevant. --AI 11:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

A few points of fact that may be of use
I felt it would be valuable to point out a few obvious facts that some editors to this article appear to be unaware of: Kelly Martin 21:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The article clearly states that Dr. Touretsky has a doctorate, from Carnegie Mellon University. Hence the claim that the article does not establish his doctorate is plainly false.
 * 2) The court in the 2600 case did not reject Dr. Touretsky's testimony; rather, the court simply refused to admit into evidence that part of it which pertained to an intepretation of the First Amendment. The balance of Dr. Touretsky's testimony was, in fact, admitted into evidence, and the court thanked him for providing the court with much useful information.  Therefore, the statement that his testimony was not admitted into evidence is also plainly false.


 * IIRC, Touretzky was an expert witness on the expressive uses of source code. His testimony on technical matters was an integral part of that case.  He seems to have also provided his opinion on matters of law, and the First Amendment in particular, which was perhaps a faux pas. The judge is essentially telling him to leave the interpretation of the constitutional issues and other matters of law to the court and to stick to his area of expertise.  I don't see how this could be used to back up any claim about DST being controversial in any way: he gave his interpretation of a legal issue along with his expert testimony, and the judge (quite expectedly) chose to ignore the former and focus on the latter. --MarkSweep 23:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The subtitle is about Freedom of Speech activism, not Touretzky's expertise on computer code, so the statement about the judge not accepting his testimony about Freedom of Speech is highly relevant. Please reword it, if there is a problem wish NPOV. --AI 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The judge did no such thing. Touretzky was not there to provide testimony about the application of the First Amendment. He was there as an expert witness to testify about his area of expertise. There is no basis for saying that the judge did not accept his testimony. --MarkSweep 06:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahread and read the relevant court transcript. The quoted/summarized excerpt is absolutely unremarkable: it's not the role of witnesses to provide opinions on matters of law. It's entirely predictable that the other party would object and the judge would throw out a witness's legal opinions. He did that not just with Touretzky's testimony, but also with Andrew Appel's testimony. The only thing it tells us about Touretzky is that he's not a lawyer, but we knew that already. --MarkSweep 07:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Touretzky is not an expert on freedom of speech :) --AI 18:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Touretzky
Obviously since Dr. Touretzky is an SP and a critic of Scientology -- and therefore a criminal, per Hubbard's decree -- AI does not like it when we dare to address him by this well-earned and respectable title. The article itself notes that he earned his doctorate, and we can also quote the same testimony that AI is referring to, in his attempt to portray Dr. Touretzky as a dangerous bomb-instruction-distributing person:


 * 16           MR. ATLAS:  Defendants call Dr. David Touretzky.

Next. --141.154.215.54 01:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever. --AI 00:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 141.154.215.54 = pool-141-154-215-54.bos.east.verizon.net. --AI 20:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I am going to remove this personal attack upon me. If anyone objects, state your opinion and reason why this statement should remain. Note: your opinion will be used as evidence in the my arbitration. --AI 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The comment is adversarial but not a personal attack against you. I strongly suggest you leave it in place, since it provides a relevant quote from the court transcript. --MarkSweep 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a personal comment, see WP:NPA. If you really need the "relevant quote" here it is "16            MR. ATLAS:  Defendants call Dr. David Touretzky." --AI 11:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant arguments about Wikipedia guidelines and policies concerning personal comments and attacks
I disagree with you, MarkSweep. "AI does not like it" is a personal comment and also not true. The remainder of the anon's comment about Dr. can remain. I will wait for further comments by other users and if no other contributors (with significant and unbiased editing history) objects I will remove it and any action taken by you opposing my action will be added to the arbitration. --AI 21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * AI, none of the foregoing is a personal attack, and if you should attempt to sanitize this discussion of material you find unpleasant, I am quite certain your efforts will be reverted. I would advise you to refrain from any such attempt.  Kelly Martin 21:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I said personal comment, not attack.--AI 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC) --AI 01:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, then you better re-read what you wrote above. --MarkSweep 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MarkSweep what have YOU contributed to the article. It seems to me your presense here is to simply "police" my actions. --AI 01:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, WP:NPA states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It is plain english which means no personal comments at all. Therefore a personal comment here technically comes under the "jurisdiction" of the policy. If you seek to police my actions more strictly, then I suggest you engage in discussion at WP:NPA and revise the document. Until then I will use the policy/guideline and specifically ignore any further comments you have about personal comments/attacks whether you address me here or my talk page. If you would like to discuss David Touretzky, then I will do that here. Now please stop distracting me from my contributions. --AI 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been explained to you several times that the guideline on removing personal attacks is highly controversial, and that ignoring reasonable requests from other users is not a good idea. But that's beside the point: you've just heard two opinions to the effect that strongly worded comments are not necessarily personal attacks. You should therefore refrain from removing those comments. --MarkSweep 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Take your opinions to WP:NOR. Your argument is not even relevant to this subtitle about Dr. Touretzky. --AI 01:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal system. Arguing about jurisdiction and other such folderol is pointless.  Please don't try to "game" Wikipedia's policy guidelines; it doesn't work and it just annoys people.  Kelly Martin 01:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly Martin, stay focused on the actual issues regarding this article and this subtitle: Dr. Touretzky! For personal comments, send a message to my talk page instead of spamming this discussion with your personal lecturing of me. --AI 02:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly's follow-up is relevant as it relates directly to your previous comments, which can in turn be viewed as you lecturing about your personal views on Wikipedia policy. I'm sure that you as the author of some of the above comments know full well how they are related to the title and issues of this subsection. --MarkSweep 02:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are aware that this article is a major part of the dispute as described in the arbitration, aren't you? Instead of arguing with me I suggest you let the arbitration do it's job and that you cease trying to influence my "style" of argument and contribution. Of course if you will simply cite policies or guidelines without interjecting your 2 cents, I probably will listen to you. --AI 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it, do you? Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by the mechanical application of rules.  Consensus is reached through discussion: the continuous interjection of the "two cents" of each editor, as all work as a group toward a joint goal.  Policy is merely a guide to this process; policy can be ignored when they get in the way of writing the encyclopedia.  This is what I meant by not gaming the policy guidelines.  You have no right to demand that others quote policy in order to support their opinions.  If you refuse to listen to the opinions of other editors, plugging your ears unless they recite some magic phrase or another from the Wikipedia Spell Book, then you will likely be ejected from the Wikipedia community for being uncooperative and for impeding the progress of the encyclopedia.  Kelly Martin 11:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly, you can join MarkSweep's party in the arbitration. Anyway, see --AI 03:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Dr.
Contrary to the anon troll's claim, I have no problem with Dr. Touretzky. Why was Dr. used at the last paragraphs yet use of Dr. was ommitted from all the other paragraphs? It was inconsistent, that is the only reason I removed it from the last paragraph. I now realize something as basic as this gets the suppressives all riled up about details while they ignore issues a thousand times bigger than Dr. Touretzky. And now, the anon spectators probably are thinking of defending themselves by claiming I am lying. Interesting... --AI 23:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you were removing it for consistency, that reasoning did not become clear from your edit summary, which was: "removed Dr. as it hasn't been established anywhere in this article that his is a Dr." --MarkSweep 20:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Suppressives"

 * "...gets the suppressives all riled up..." Hmm.  the suppressives. Interesting. --Modemac 23:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes that's what I stated: suppressives. What is your problem? --AI 00:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to clarify your statement that we are "suppressives." AI, do we meet the definition of a suppressive person? --Modemac 11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you the anon? If not, then why are you so concerned if I believe there are suppressive people in society who also get involved with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, talk you irrelevant argument elsewhere.  If you'd like to talk about Touretzky's Doctorate then that is the only relevance of our statements here. :)--AI 19:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stop labeling people as "trolls". This is not productive. Neither is adding "Dr." in front of every occurrence of "Touretzky". --MarkSweep 00:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A troll is a troll. The anon spectators want Dr. they get Dr. Please read my edit summary before jumping on me about the Dr's.  Do not simply revert.  What have you contributed to the article?  I have contributed. --AI 01:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Even though folks with doctorates can technically be referred to as "Dr," in academia people rarely use the term. For example, how many times is Francis Crick referred to as a Doctor? Maybe referring to Touretzky once as "Dr. Touretzky" in the first paragraph might be fine, but using it throughout the entire article is overkill. --NeuronExMachina 04:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Next relevant discussion
Lets stay focused on the actual content of this article which is Professor and Doctor David S. Touretzky. --AI 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

DeCSS case
I've rephrased the DeCSS section, and linked it with the article on the case, Universal v. Reimerdes. That article does not (as of now) contain material on the various witnesses - which it certainly could. Maybe those of us who wish to expand Wikipedia's coverage of the testimony in that case could add to it there? JesseW 01:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job! I was looking for the correct name of the case earlier, I'm glad someone found and added it. --MarkSweep 03:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture from RFW
Al, please explain further why the picture from RFW's page is a case of fair use. As it says on Fair use: "every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page". Thanks! JesseW 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did explain it to you on your talk page. Discussion of this issue here is a waste of time also considering the article is now displaying a different picture of Dr. David Touretzky. --AI 07:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk page: "Thanks for the response. As the image has now been replaced, I think the discussion is done." So we agree on this. ;-) JesseW 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) --AI 21:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Free Speech activist
Touretzky claims to be a free speech activist, yet he works to shut down websites that expose some of his 'nastier hobbies.', And, in the the Universal City Studios et al. v. Reimerdes et al. lawsuit he took the stand as an expert witness to present his point of view regarding computer code. United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan found Touretzky's testimony important but rejected his views on freedom of speech. This should be noted for the sake of NPOV. --AI 19:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Again with the Kaplan quotes taken out of context? This was already debated (see above) and found to be a highly distorted representation of what the judge said and what it meant in the context of the trial. --MarkSweep&#x270D; 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I provided no quotes and used my own words, the reference is properly attributed. Please explain. --AI 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets spare everyone of the rhetoric and filibustering and lets get to the point:
 * What is Touretzky's professional background?
 * What was Touretzky's involvement in the DeCSS case.?
 * What did Touretzky say in his testimony?
 * What did the Judge say about Touretzky's testimony?

I'll let you answer those questions first, if you don't in a day or so, then I will. For now, consider my POV: David Touretzky is not the expert free speech activist the article is making him out to be. The Kaplan quote shows that David Touretzky may be an expert on computers in regards to communication, but he is not an expert on freedom of speech. As a reminder: Failure to fairly represent all POV's is a violation of NPOV. And Consensus does not trump NPOV. --AI 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This was already debated above and rejected. I'm not the one who's filibustering here. --MarkSweep&#x270D; 03:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not debated and rejected. Only you rejected it and then the others filibustered the discussion with other issues.  Provide differences from this talk page that shows this particular issue (Kaplan's comment about Touretzky as no expert on the first amendment) was rejected. The judges quote can be there per NPOV requirements especially since the Article's section is about Touretzky's freedom of speech "activism." --AI 10:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't call me a "free speech expert". It calls me a free speech activist, which is correct.  I am also an expert in computer science, and was recognized as such by the court.  AI confuses "activist" with "expert" to justify refuting a claim the article never made.  -- Touretzky 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

To answer AI's questions above:
 * What is Touretzky's professional background?
 * Quoting from the article: "He received a BA in Computer Science at Rutgers University in 1978, and earned a Master's degree and a Ph.D. (1984) in Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University." It doesn't mention any other jobs he may have held between his Master's degree and his current job.  If someone can provide sources for this, it would be interesting, I suppose.
 * What was Touretzky's involvement in the DeCSS case.?
 * Againg, quoting: "In 2000, Dr. Touretzky testified as an expert witness for the defense in Universal City Studios et al. v. Reimerdes et al. ... Dr. Touretzky's testimony on the expressive nature of computer code convinced the court that code was indeed speech." The problem with this is what, exactly?
 * What did Touretzky say in his testimony?
 * Quoting the article: "Dr. Touretzky's testimony on the expressive nature of computer code". For the full text of his testimony, again from the article, see http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000725_ny_trial_transcript.html  What more do you want on this?
 * What did the Judge say about Touretzky's testimony?
 * Quoting from the article, "Dr. Touretzky's testimony ... convinced the court that code was indeed speech." See transcript(linked in article, and above) for the full text. Again, these questions seem to be excellently answered already in the article.  What is your objection?

So, now your questions above have been answered, and all from quotes from the article. What exactly was the point of all of this? Thanks, anyway. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Jesse, you didn't mention the actual quote I originally presented wherein the judge mentions Touretzky's view of the First Amendment. Here is the part of the transcript. I only included the statement by Mr. Atlas so that some people here do not think I am trying to take things out of context. --AI 10:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * --AI 10:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jesse, the discussion is simply an attempt to restart a discussion that we already had a couple of weeks ago on this very same talk page. Touretzky, as a computer scientist, was an expert witness on the expressive nature of computer code, and the gist of hist testimony was that high-level source code, assembly code, and machine language are all inter-translatable and essentially equivalent to any other sufficiently precise description of an algorithm. Apparently, his written testimony that the transcript refers to also contained a few passages where he expressed his opinions on how all of this relates to the First Amendment. The counsel for the plaintiff objected to that (and only that) portion of his testimony on the grounds that he was present as an expert on computer code, not on the First Amendment. The judge upheld the objection, and merely pointed out that Touretzky was present as an expert witness, not as an amicus curiae.


 * If you look at the discussion above or the history of the article, you'll see that AI has tried to include certain bits from the transcript which, taken out of context, make the judge sound as if he's dismissing large portions of Touretzky's testimony and deriding him for not being an expert on the First Amendment. The presence of those quotes would paint a highly distorted picture of what was actually going on: the opposing party's job is to object at every possible opportunity in order to get as much of his testimony thrown out as possible. The judge was merely doing his job, and the exact same thing happened with at least one other witness (Andrew Appel) under much the same circumstances.  All of this is completely routine, as far as the court proceedings are concerned. Nobody could reasonably draw the conclusion that Touretzky presented himself as an expert on the First Amendment: the article says very clearly that he's a computer scientist (as opposed to a lawyer) and a free speech activist.  Our article never makes the claim, and neither does Touretzky himself, that he is an expert on the First Amendment, and hence such a claim need not be refuted.  In fact, it is conceivable (but equally irrelevant) that Touretzky is indeed an unrecognized expert on the First Amendment, but that wouldn't change the judge's comments one bit: Touretzky was called as an expert witness to provide testimony on the use of computer code.  It doesn't matter what other expertise he may or may not have, he simply was there for one and only one thing, and the opposing counsel would have been ineffective if they hadn't jumped on the opportunity to get anything and everything not related to his expertise on computer code thrown out. --MarkSweep &#x270D; 11:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark claims that my edits "make the judge sound as if he's dismissing large portions of Touretzky's testimony and deriding him for not being an expert on the First Amendment". I clearly have written "United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan found Touretzky's testimony important but rejected his views on freedom of speech." Note: MarkSweep's misrepresentation. --AI 10:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Attributing the quote to claim that David Touretzky is not an expert is what I am doing. Whether or not he is an expert IS relevant and important to know because the article portrays of him as being an activist in freedom of speech and mentions him testifying as an "expert." What is misleading is if the article says he was simply an "expert witness" instead of an "expert computer science witness." --AI 10:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Now the article does say he "testified as an expert in computer science".  It is good to clarify these things, but it is also true that the judge ignoring extra testimony by Touretzky on other topics is commonly done with any witneess, and not relevant.  If you are not satisfied with this now, please explain why. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Because Touretzky's actions demonstrate that he is not really an activist for freedom of speech. --AI 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

David Touretzky and his friends are no free speech activists, they just love one kind of free speech, their own!
Dave Touretzky and his supporters hi jacked at least five of mine and two websites by other people from the net. Those articles were true and critical of him, and I got word that he calls the ISPs and threaten to sue them despite he has no case. As the ISPs don't want to involved in legal actions, they give in. Is that free speech or what? --Vivaldi Rocks!


 * CMU's "FREE SPEECH" PROFESSOR CENSORS INTERNET SITES Added: (Mon Aug 29 2005)
 * Dave Touretzky and his friends removed another one of my webpages. Note that everything that I said in that page about him is true and can be proven in a court of law. But it seems he put the ISPs under pressure, telling them that he will sue them, and they don't want to be sued so they give in.
 * I noticed that this writer keeps up with David Touretzky censuring the Internet. He adds his unconstitutional activities to the article. See yourself.
 * The only free speech that Dave likes is his own free speech not that of others. http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Internet/CARNEGIE_MELLON_s_PROFESSOR_CONTINUES_TO_CENSOR_INTERNET_SITES_35735.html. --205.127.246.152


 * Full text of press release deleted - follow above link to read it. --Willmcw 17:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * since its launch in 1999, pressbox has become one of the pre-eminent online media resource portals acting as an online hub between opt in journalists and PR organisation and business. -http://www.pressbox.co.uk/about.htm
 * And what's this about rats, anyway? --Maru (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * DST is known to have gotten several websites shut down, this should be mentioned in the article. --AI 08:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Prove it. Provide a link to verifiable documentation so that we can see this for ourselves. --Modemac 17:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * AI, as always, please reference your sources so that we can ascertain the veracity of such a claim. I am not aware of any cases of Prof. Touretzky shutting down web sites, and a Google search reveals no information further to your claim.
 * Please provide a source for claims like these, we can then take them seriously and evaluate them (and, no, RFW is not an adequate secondary source, regardless of the nature of the claims it makes or how justified attacks are on the individuals that it slanders). I would be interested to know of any instances of such behaviour. ML, NicholasTurnbull 17:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you are blind, Mr. Turnbull. Ms. Schwarz mentioned it and when you google Dave Touretzky+porn invoice you find a lot of information about that.
 * Mr. Turnbull, go to the article on Barbara Schwarz. Usenet postings are used as main "evidence" and some claims are not backed up with anything. So, why doesn't deserve the English article on Toureztky some credit in the Wikipedia article? You also have a misunderstanding on "slander". Some legal education could do you some good.
 * Ms. Schwarz claimed that her website critical on Mr. Touretzky was taken down several times for no legal reasons, a reporter in the Uk apparently keeps track on it, and you should not show bias against websites that you just don't happen to like.
 * I have nothing personally against Mr. Touretzky, but my research on him on Usenet convinced me that his friends want a vanity page on him on Wikipedia. I actually saw the porn invoice on-line with the information that he purchased porn supplements from his office at the CMU. An educator should not do that. Why is that porn invoice not mentioned in the article? Problem is certain people lie on Wikipedia that the evidence is false despite clear evidence.  --12.110.19.97


 * Sorry, but "research ... on Usenet" is not going to cut it. We need reliable sources here. --MarkSweep &#x270D; 00:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then we have a double standard on Wikipedia. Much of the information about Ms. Schwarz are Usenet postings. Mr. Touretzky takes the evidence down. That porn invoice was webbed in original. I saw it with my own eyes on that website.


 * Really. Then explain why there is a whole dead-tree reference section in Schwarz's article, where the bulk of the information is drawn from. Then explain how you go from an paragraph in the article dealing with her messages on Usenet, which treats them skeptically, to asserting that the whole article draws on them, uncritically. --Maru (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maru, please stick to the issues. --AI 19:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * USENET is not an unreliable source in this case, Sweep. Touretzky and Barbara are active USENET posters. David Touretzky has had Barbara's websites removed more than one time which has been discussed on Usenet by Touretzky and Barbara and others in ARS. --AI 19:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Website shutdown claims
Pressbox.co.uk is not a reliable source, AFAIK. The organization listed has no hits on google other than from pressbox.co.uk. The person listed, Cynthia Burke, is a very common name, and so googling does not provide useful information. Who is this person? What news organization does she work for? Does she have a web site? Does she have a email address? (The linked one does not work, at least for me.) Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of these statements. (It would be nice if someone would write a nice, NPOV article on pressbox.co.uk, so we could use that as a reference. Any volunteers?) AI, would you provide URLs, and wayback machine copies of the site's that have been shut down, or explain why you cannot? Were these two basic pieces of information not mentioned in the Usenet discussions? Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't be doing any re-researching, instead I will seek to get copies of other's documentation. I was on USENET and read some of the postings at the time that several of the removals occured, so I know the documentation is out there. --AI 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. Whatever the name of it is, I will look forward to the URLs you will be providing on this talk page.  Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I did the research months ago but did not document it because I was only satisfying my own knowledge and I already have my work cut out for me this week, but if Wikipedia pays me for my time I will jump onto this right away. --AI 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is as may be, but if a claim is to be included into Wikipedia, it needs to be documented. --JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz's website was one of the sites removed and she was one of the person's who documented hers and other sites being removed. I believe this documentation was once copied to the WWW, but that WWW site was one that was also removed. If I remember correctly the same documentation was posted to USENET and also referenced by some organizations that deal with freedom of speech. --AI 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please be more specific, if you can. We are all volunteers here, AFAIK. --JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to move the pressbox reference to the paragraph on the attacks against Touretzky by Scientologists, as, so far, that is all that has been demonstrated. And I have glossed the link to explain it's status. --JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the Pressbox reference. The article is sourced to an a non-existent entity with no contact information. For what it's worth, I've noticed that many alt.religion.scientology participants, on both sides of the argument, are using Pressbox as an alternative to posting, primarily because Google indexes Pressbox in their news engine. While the validity of any 'news' found on the PR post-it-yourself sites is questionable at best, Pressbox in particular has morphed into a libel farm. Additionally, even if the allegations in the article were true, removing a web site is not incompatible with being a free speech activist, if the web site contained libelous material or copyright violations.--Tikk 00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Reverted AI's edit to comply with Tikk, above. It may seem ironic that a free-speech activist could be accused of censorship, but the egregious nature of the activities of Barbara Schwarz do not merit any sort of useful comparison.  Getting her sites shut down was her own doing, though many others who were upset with her behavior on usenet were willing to help a little by pointing out the content of her sites to her ISP's.  Dr. Touretzky's input was not required.


 * Pressbox is an unedited bulletin board which is unfortunately scanned by Google News.  AI  should know this as it is barraged every day with official-looking press releases such as  this one which are critical of Scientology.  As always, using Barbara Schwarz as a reference is also counter-productive.


 * Also removed in this reversion was a comment about the value of DST's legal opinions. That issue has already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere on this page. --Vreejack 02:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Vreejack, you don't have to call my work vandalism just because I hold my ground even against several editors. Anyway, i will concede at this point until more sources can be provided to support the allegation that David Touretzky has had websites shut down. --AI 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Dave Touretzky and Karin Spaink connection
I learned that he promotes her and she promotes suicides on a Usenet newsgroup called alt.suicide.holiday which has 14 confirmed deaths. The governments of the UK and Australia declared war against suicide promotion.

http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1789&ArticleID=909113 http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1789&ArticleID=917087 http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/browse_thread/thread/82ec9b2013a3ec5b/7c6ffb3b5be5885f?lnk=st&q=Dave+Touretzky%2BKarin+Spaink&rnum=1&hl=en#7c6ffb3b5be5885f http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/26dfe79325ffed6c/53cf3c28c79b1f81?lnk=st&q=Dave+Touretzky%2BKarin+Spaink&rnum=1&hl=en#53cf3c28c79b1f81


 * Oh please. How on earth could Touretzky have done all of the stuff you haters accuse him of? For gosh's sake, there are only 24 hours in a day! --Maru (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 24 hours is a long time to get a lot done, especially if you only hardly sleep and only take brief meal breaks. There are 365 days in a year, so that make 8760 hours in a year to do many things including defending Touretzky with silly arguments! --AI 18:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

204.113.91.11 blocked for 1 week
User:204.113.91.11 is blocked for 1 week due to repeated vandalism of user talk pages. I don't care whether 204.113.91.11 is Barbara Schwarz or not -- this user is doing nothing but vandalizing Wikipedia talk pages, so this IP adddress is blocked. --Modemac 16:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing controversy tag
AI has been banned from Wikipedia and Barbara Schwarz spends most of her edit time frothing, and they're the only ones making it "controversial". Hopefully we can now continue to build the article in a relatively sane manner - David Gerard 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

POV reason
The article states, "He has also worked to expose what he sees as dangerous and potentially life-threatening treatments provided by Narconon..." There is no proof of this claim. It appears to be a "sound bite" for the purpose of pointing the reader to his website. Bioscribe 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You selected the wrong thing. You need to add a  tag after the sentence or quote that you believe is unsourced.  Then if the quote cannot be sourced after a number of days we can discuss removing it or rewording it.  The NPOV tag is not appropriate and will be removed.  Vivaldi (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How's this for proof? "Narconon's unaccredited rehab program endangers people's health with a medically indefensible treatment regimen that poses a significant risk of liver damage."  That's a direct quote from http://Stop-Narconon.org/SFUSD  --Touretzky 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that is pretty good I would say, considering that David, err...you, own Stop-Narconon.org (see the whois info here). I think you, being David Touretzky himself, are eminently qualified to speak on subjects that involve your own thoughts and feelings and even your own actions.  Vivaldi (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Unattributed Copyrighted Material
Someone on Wikipedia is using Dave Touretzky's Do-It-Yourself Counter Notification Letter as justification for linking to unattributed material that is purported to be a TV news report from 1993. I have several problems with this use:

1) The purported TV newscast is hosted on a personal Website without any attribution to the source.

2) Wikipedia contains links directly to these hosted MP3 files without identifying the Website that is hosting the material or the people who are supposed to have produced it.

3) Wikipedia does not acknowledge the copyright of the purported TV news broadcast.

As I see it, this is not only a violation of copyright, it is also a violation of the rules of good scholarship. Anyone could have produced those files, and then claimed it was a TV news broadcast, then linked Wikipedia to it to bolster their claims.

My opponent insists that because I am trying to remove material critical of the subject, that my complaints have no legitimacy. This is where Dave Touretzky's article comes in. My opponent implies that I am defending a cult.

I am interested in hearing Mr. Touretzky's explanation of this. BTW, the article in question has nothing to do with Scientology, nor do any of the members involved in that Wikipedia page, as far as I know. Pooua 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua- As long as the person is properly sourcing the claims in the article to the original source and not to the copy that is hosted on the personal website, then there isn't a problem with it. The external links are not required to meet the guidelines of reliable sources, they are merely provided as a courtesy or convenience to the reader.  From my understanding of the situation at Jack Hyles (talk) it appears as though the actual news program is sourced to Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News program.  I'd count that is an actual reliable and reputable source of news, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Removing claims that are sourced to DMEN and agreed upon by consensus, probably is a bad idea on your part.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pooua- You have attempted to claim copyright protection for something for which you are not the copyright holder. It isn't an obvious case of copyright violation to me.  Perhaps the material is public domain, perhaps the owner has granted permission, perhaps the owner has allowed the copyright to expire, or perhaps the owner has not ever registered their copyright (in which case the owner cannot use any legal means in the U.S. to stop infringement, until they do register the copyright).  If you are concerned about the rights of DMEN, then you should report what you think is a possible copyright violation the them and allow them to pursue actions against the 3rd party.  I suspect you really aren't concerned with DMEN's intellectual property rights, here though, but rather you are doing whatever you can to prevent unsavory information being written about Jack Hyles.  I would suggest to you that attempting to remove this material on Wikipedia will leave you frustrated perpetually if you are removing it against consensus.  Discuss your reasons on the talk page, and convince others of your point of view before you make major changes or deletions if they are controversial.  I'd suggest that you may be more successful if instead of concentrating on deleting material about Jack Hyles, you start work on adding information about Jack Hyles that supports your point-of-view and meets the requirements of verifiability.  Has Jack won any awards?  Has Jack received praise from important people?  Has Jack been involved in charitable work?  Things like this, if added to the article, would help make it more balanced.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have not deleted any material from the Jack Hyles page. Believe me, I have been tempted, but I have managed to resist the temptation. That is not to say that I have not been accused of it several times, now, though.


 * Secondly, you have an incorrect understanding of copyright law. For one, material does not have to be registered to be covered under copyright, as the U.S. Copyright Office notes on their registration page:


 * "In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. " Copyright Registration


 * Third, the entity known as "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News" does not exist. The "Preying from the Pulpit" news program was produced, as I recall, in 1993; CBS Channel 2, of which the "Detroit Michigan Eyewitness News" was the news team, was sold, ultimately to Fox Corporation, in 1995. That bit of yellow journalism--which even the NWI Times identified as such at that time--was the last-ditch effort of the station to boost ratings.


 * Fourth, I have e-mailed both Fox News Channel 2 and CBS Corporate regarding this copyright infringement. I also made a long-distance phone call to Fox News, and they replied to me in e-mail. I have not heard back from CBS, which does not surprise me, but I will keep trying. Pooua 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian editor
The fact that Prof. Touretzky is a Wikipedia editor has been removed. Less than 50 edits over a period of a year. Some just correcting typos. I conceed the point. -- 71.141.27.123 22:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just editing once on Wikipedia makes you an editor. --Modemac 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived old discussions
I have archived the old discussions, most of them were nearly a year old and most of the banter was from banned user or blocked user. You can review old discussions by clicking on the little link in the Archive infobox. Do not edit old discussions, but rather start the discussions here anew if you wish to bring them up again. Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for a comment
Hello David. Do you have a comment to make in regard to this link link removed per WP:BLP policy Orsini 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)  Terryeo 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would David bother dignifying the scientology cult's smear site by making any comment about it? Joel Phillips, the alleged webmaster of that scientology smear site, is recorded on video as stating that with regards to facts and truth and the removal of lies, they have "no obligation" to be honest.   This video is available at http://www.xenutv.com/andreas/index.html  on the file name andreas1.rm, and Phillips’ admission was part of an exchange with Tory Christman from time index: 09:51.80.  Orsini 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Terryeo is trolling, as usual. Since Terryeo is already banned from editing Scientology-related articles, I can think of no valid reason, related to the editing of articles, that Terryeo would need to bring this up on Touretzky's and ChrisO's talk pages. wikipediatrix 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. Touretzky's sites are frequently cited in Scientology articles. Yet this link link removed per WP:BLP policy Orsini 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)   says some things which most people would not expect an expert to say.  In addition there is the question of his postings about bomb-making.  I'm curious.  Wikipedia is supporting Touretzky in the sense that Wikipedia links to Touretzky's sites.  I think all of us want Wikipedia's articles to be of good quality and don't want Wikipedia to reflect an interest in spreading terrorism, bigotry or other passe' attitudes which have had some past acceptance.  So, I'm curious and that is my purpose in requesting a comment, okay? Terryeo 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not curious; you are making comments to intentionally provoke people. The smear tool of the scientology cult is completely without merit, and I do not believe that site is taken seriously or understood to be credible by any sane person.  Its "webmaster" Joel Phillips has been recorded on video stating he has don't have the obligation to correct any of the lies and smears he publishes on it, so Phillips' smear site appears to me to be "the source of spreading terrorism, bigotry [and] other passe' attitudes" you are whining about here.  David Touretzky is on public record stating the scientology cult attempts to defame and smear its critics with innuendo and false information, and Phillips' site is clear evidence of this.  Terryeo, explain why an allegedly religious organization needs a hate site to defame the critics exposing the cult's abuse.  Failure to do so will be considered trolling with your "request for a comment".  Also show exactly where David Touretzky  has made "his postings about bomb-making" using reliable sources meeting Wikipedia standards.  Failure to do so will be considered libel.  Orsini 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)  PS: It appears Terryeo has been blocked indefinitely. Orsini 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And you think that quotes from claimed IRC logs are any kind of source at all? For your information, that makes Usenet articles seem like rock-solid proof in comparison. Your trolling is getting worse and worse. AndroidCat 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo is clearly committed to trolling and to engaging in personal smears about the character of Wikipedia editors, such as this one. Isn't this yet another violation of his parole?  Are we condemned to put up with his abuses forever?  BTfromLA 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already made some requests for admins to consider a permanent block on Terryeo based on this "spreading terrorism and bigotry" comment. wikipediatrix 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully justified. I was just looking at that "religiousfreedomwatch" site, which has become more extensive than I remember it.  Not only is Dave Touretzky linked to bigotry, terrorism, misuse of government funds, putting babies in cages, etc., but Chris Owen is there, too, depicted as an admirer of Osama bin Laden. BTfromLA 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BTfromLA: such ridiculous claims are not unexpected from the web sites of the lunatic fringe element often found on the internet these days. Orsini 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, BT, and exactly why I was asking for a comment. You notice I am not attempting to validate any claim, but am asking for a comment.  I created, you see, a question.  When asked, I went the next step and responded, telling why I asked a question.  Good point. The things BT mention are the things I wonder about. Terryeo 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Terryeo, that's so transparent. For example: What is your opinion on the rumour that you sledgehammer grandmothers from behind for their grocery money? Personally, I doubt it, but I'm just asking for comment. It quacks like a duck, please stop trying to dress it up. AndroidCat 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Pilots find satisfaction in donating their time

 * Source to incorporate into the article. If no one else gets to it I'll add it later. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Source to incorporate into the article. If no one else gets to it I'll add it later. Cirt (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on David S. Touretzky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402203851/http://awards.acm.org/homepage.cfm?awd=157 to http://awards.acm.org/homepage.cfm?awd=157
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216085128/http://www.wpxi.com/target11/2176679/detail.html to http://www.wpxi.com/target11/2176679/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050416050956/http://forbiddenspeech.org/ReclaimGuide/reclaim.shtml to http://forbiddenspeech.org/ReclaimGuide/reclaim.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216085128/http://www.wpxi.com/target11/2176679/detail.html to http://www.wpxi.com/target11/2176679/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180421/http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=7uouc3y5f1.app24a&page=NewsArticle&id=7770&news_iv_ctrl=1329 to http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=7uouc3y5f1.app24a&page=NewsArticle&id=7770&news_iv_ctrl=1329
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206200152/http://defamer.com/397516/l-ron-hubbard-middle-school-not-an-indoctrination-center-says-scientologist-founder-will-smith to http://defamer.com/397516/l-ron-hubbard-middle-school-not-an-indoctrination-center-says-scientologist-founder-will-smith

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)