Talk:Sherman Austin

message: :Ironically, Carnegie Mellon University professor David Touretzky, who has also posted bombmaking information to the internet, has not been charged or arrested.
This was removed from the main article as being irrelevant. I don't think it is. The whole reason that the FBI and their thugs were supposedly after Austin was his posting this content. David Touretzky posted the same content out of protest and in support of Free Speech. David Touretzky posted this information because of the FBI's abuse of its powers in regards to Sherman Austin.
I agree with the above comment.
Perhaps it was removed because it wasn't the least bit ironic :)    But it wasn't particularly relevant either.72.91.198.248 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Touretzky 

message: This article reads as a vitriolic polemic against charges being brought against this individual rather than any relevent biographical approach to the subject, much less the reason why he is known at all.  Wikipedia is not a personal soapbox to reflect the arguments of editors over obscure political causes.  --TJive 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be specific please about which sentences are POV in your opinion. --Revolución (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This stands out "In fact the FBI referred to a completely different site authored by a completely different individual (whom they visited and questioned in person) but purposely lied, fabricated evidence, and lied in court documents to frame Sherman and paint him as a terrorist."  Were any of this to be provable, the events outlined in this article would have played differently.  However they aren't, things haven't, and so they don't fit a NPOV. Alvis 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV/Accuracy check

message: It would be nice to have things like a birth date or at least a year, if possible.  If somebody else wants to make the "Sherman Austin crimes" page, that would be fine also. -- 75.24.107.10 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a biography 

message: There needs to be a little more info on this, i'm under the impression that the reason for the charge, was a post to his website, made by SOMEONE ELSE, that was just a link to an external site. This seems like an important detail, anyone got good info on this? Murderbike 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  details of the charges 

message: Changed the wording of the introduction about 18USC 842p in order to reflect that the statute only criminalizes distribution of explosives information in case the distributor acted with the knowledge or intention that the information be used to commit a violent federal crime.
*Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Sherman Austin's IRC accounts were compromised by an individual who made threats against the Federal government.
*Indicated that the statement "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI." lacks any factual reference.
*Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Austin was questioned for six hours without an attorney present.
*Indicated a citation is needed for the claim that Austin's appointed public defender participated in an attempt to threaten or intimidate him.
*Indicated that Austin's claims about secret NSA wiretapping of his communication are unverified by any factual reference or independent observer.
*Corrected the quote “distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction”, which was misprinted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheck 4uwingnuts (talk • contribs) 17:15, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
*Indicated that Sherman has admitted to distributing the information which he was convicted of distributing. The reference is in the same publication cited in the same sentence, so no additional citation is needed.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The already existing references in the article only mention two Americans: Zack de la Rocha and David Touretzky. Thus the claim that many Americans consider Austin to be a political prisoner is, itself, unsourced. Additionally, the rest of the article also makes it clear that Austin is an anarchist and was prosecuted under 18USC 842p, yet all of this information is appropriately located in the summary contained in the introduction.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the De La Rocha and Touretsky references are not sufficient to support the claim that Austin enjoys wide support or approval. What I meant was that the section needs reliable sources, and that two wrongs don't make a right in this regard. By the way, to sign your comments, simply type four tildes like this ~~~~. Best of luck, Skomorokh incite 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of cleanup

message: Besides lacking a reference to a reliable published source, and being inexplicably vague, this claim is dubious and should be verified or removed.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim that "the government fabricated evidence"

message: If Professor David Touretzky of CMU has ever made this claim, it's difficult to imagine why it would not be found anywhere on the extensive and well-maintained website which he has specifically devoted to the topic. Furthermore, the claim is dubious and difficult to support; at the very least it needs to be substantively qualified. Even assuming the goverment had no methods or intention for determining the criminal intent requisite for prosecution under 18 USC 842p and genuinely sought to criminally penalize Austin for protected political speech in a manner that violated both established law and constitutional analysis, the claim that "virtually anyone could be prosecuted" under this law is patently ridiculous. I highly doubt, and see no evidence, that this claim as worded belongs to Touretzky. If wrong, I imagine I may be in for a frightening discharge of intellectual authority, but hey, that's the risk I'm taking.Factcheck 4uwingnuts 07:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Touretzky] says the law is vague to the point that virtually anyone could be prosecuted under it. 

message: Just a quick note here. 
This user deleted my comments here. 
Talk pages should be kept "as is" unless there is a valid reason for deleting comments. This is different from the article itslef.
If you cannot state a reason for deleting something than don't do it.
Piercetp (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by  72.91.198.248 

message: This article seems quite biased in my opinion, and I think it should be flagged.  There is much talk about anarchism in this article, where Raisethefist.com was an awareness site, and Sherman Austin wrote little on the site, the charges against him were because someone else posted a link on there to a website that supposedly has information on explosives.  As was said above, many of the sources were biased and unfair.  I admit to a little bias myself, but I saw Sherman Austin two days ago in Vancouver, speaking at a cultural festival.  There is a very different opinion generated there, how the U.S. government considers awareness "terrorism", and took him on three seperate occasions under the new U.S. Patriot act.  
Talore, 09:38, 12 August 2008
:Talore,
:Could you be more specific about what you think is being presented with a bias? Keep in mind that this is an extremely controversial topic. Many people would feel that it is biased FOR Austin rather than against him. However within Wikipedia the meaning of bias is a little more specific and technical.
:Basically speaking, when dealing with a controversial topic, the aim of Wikipedia (as I understand it -- I am not an administrator or anything like that) is to present all sides of an argument, insofar as the views can be substantiated by independent, reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and standards for fact-checking. Just based on that one requirement alone, huge portions of stuff posted on the Internet become out of bounds because they simply don't meet that definition. There are important exceptions: self-published material by an author or entity may be used in an article ABOUT that author or entity, as long as the views referenced are attributed to the source.
:So, what we have here are newspaper and magazine articles about Austin, police reports and court transcripts, as well as the Touretsky website, a Counterpunch interview, and other sources sympathetic to Austin. I don't think there are too many places on Wikipedia where you'll find a YouTube video of Zack de la Rocha in the references section. The "criticism" section takes up half the article.
:Overall, the article seems balanced to me. 
:It is worth mentioning that several months ago, this article contained all kinds of false, misleading, outlandish, unsourced, or otherwise highly inappropriate content, such as unsourced claims that "the government fabricated evidence", statements that Austin's public defender threatened and coerced him into a plea. Potentially libelous material such as an unsourced and false claim that Prof. Touretzky of CMU said "...[the law Austin was convicted under] is so vague to the point that virtually anyone could be prosecuted under [it]". The lead paragraph almost completely disregarded factual information and instead embraced a totally subjective analysis (blatant original research) about the "state of the First Amendment in the age of Terrorism". Even to this day there is a plug for Austin's CD in the opening paragraph... totally inappropriate location bordering on spam. The list goes on.
:A lot of people have had trouble understanding that Wikipedia aims to be a mainstream repository for verifiable factual information; not a political blog to be enjoyed as a soapbox for anyone with an interest in a topic that has an article written about it. A lot of work has been done transforming this article from a political diatribe into a relatively dry article, albeit "biased", largely dealing with matters of fact.
:Not for nothing, but Austin was never arrested for anything that was made illegal by the Patriot Act. The bomb-making activities described herein had already been illegal for years when the Patriot Act was introduced. The Patriot Act just increased the criminal penalties. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: It is inappropriate for an editor to simply post content in the "external links" section and then invite others to use it as a source to expand the article. This is known as "source solicitation". Please avoid this in the future. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source solicitation 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html
*:Triggered by \bserendipity\.li\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sherman Austin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141204193952/http://www.fsrn.org/news/20040713_news.html to http://www.fsrn.org/news/20040713_news.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070815222510/http://infoshop.org:80/shermanaustin.html to http://www.infoshop.org/shermanaustin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070718221643/http://www.carlagirl.net/activism/freesherman.html to http://www.carlagirl.net/activism/freesherman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified