Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Excised section

The following section was removed because it is badly written, unverifiable, and reiterates points already in the article.

However, he was the last of his generation of hackers at the lab. He rejected a future where he would have to sign non-disclosure agreements not to share source code or technical information with other software developers and perform other actions he considered betrayals of his principles. He chose instead to share his work with others in what he regarded as a classical spirit of collaboration. While Stallman did not participate in the 1960s era counterculture, he was inspired by its rejection of the pursuit of wealth as the primary goal of living.

I think quotes illustrating the content of this paragraph would be a welcome addition. 66.117.135.137 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

I think I saw this guy in a James Bond movie as a hacker. It was the one about Rupert Murdoch taking over the world by making China go to war with the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeep (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that was Ricky Jay, playing the character of Henry Gupta in Tomorrow Never Dies. Though they do share some superficial similarity. // Meneth (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Dobb's editor

The article Free software says that Richard Stallman was an "editor of the computer hobbyist magazine Dr. Dobb's Journal" and it is marked as "citation needed".

I believe that an old issue of the journal with Stallman's name in the staff list would be a good enough citation, but i don't have a copy myself.

Does anyone have access to such a thing?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Dr. Dobb's Journal for over 20 years, says to me today in private email, "No, that's wrong. DDJ published the Gnu Manifesto which he wrote, but he was never a DDJ editor." JackWoehr (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

jewish

i suprised there is no mention of his jewish ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a defining characteristic. He doesn't practice the religion, define himself by that ancestry, or socially focus on jewish culture. Gronky (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
After putting it together, I too wondered why no mention of his Jewish ancestry is made here (both that he looks it, and his surname are good indicators). I'll admit my *own* interest is piqued by an affirmation bias of a, shall we say "certain" positive stereotype, but it seems the author has deliberately left out this information to avoid such things. I don't believe the preceding response by Gronky is apt, since many notable figures do neither the same things that he listed - how many persons described "of African-American decent" in their Wikipedia articles practice black religion? or define themselves by their black ancestry? or socially focus on black culture? In fact most public figures of ethnicity are no more 'defined' by their roots than Stallman is of his; Wikipedia mentions it because it is encyclopedic to do so.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds racist, if anything, what's the difference between a person born in a Jewish family and a person born in a non-Jewish family? Especially if the person is not religious. Race? What else then? man with one red shoe 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that people want to know. What's the difference between a person born in a Black/Asian/Irish family and so forth? Yet every notable person articled on Wikipedia has a blurb about their ethnicity regardless of its impact on their lives. People want to know. 76.67.111.164 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact is not that "people want to know", but that an active minority of wikipedia editors want everybody to "know". I put quotation marks around "know" because we are not dealing with a physical fact, but about what seems to be a race-like classification (as man with one red shoe well put it) that is being advocated by some people and not by others. Moreover, the label is just much too ambiguous to be of encyclopaedic worth: for most people in most places, "Jewish" is first and foremost a religious label, but then, in others, it isn't. Feketekave (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This may be of interest: http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jan-apr.html#06%20March%202011%20%28Flagrant%20Censorship%29
In a flagrant act of censorship, a man is being prosecuted in France for "public insults" involving bigotry.
One of his insults was directed at "Jews" as an ethnic group. That targets me; but I find his prosecution more offensive than what he said.
Note that the emphasis on race and not religion. Although I agree it is not a defining characteristic of Richard Stallman, it is probably worth noting. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist?

Stallman is included in American anarchists and Living anarchists. However, I have never seen a source where Stallman described himself as an anarchist. The main text of the article makes no mention of it. I saw no discussion of it in the archives. Indeed, many things he's professed on his personal website (e.g., support for Nader, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats) do not seem to support that Stallman is an anarchist. If there's a credible source for this, fine; otherwise, I think Stallman should be removed from those categories. --creativename (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He is not, but opponents of the Free Software Movement like to act like he is. Lessig actually addresses this logic directly in his book Free Culture. ~ 10nitro (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A native American English speaker

This obviously needs rewriting.

The latter two both seem plausible, which was intended? 78.110.162.163 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove it. The exact dialect of English he uses is hardly important, and is trivially inferrable from his homeland. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

rms?

The article begins with : Richard Matthew Stallman (born March 16, 1953), often abbreviated "rms", and uses his homepage at stallman.org as a reference where he mentions : "Richard Stallman" is just my mundane name; you can call me "rms". Just because he refers to himself as "rms" does not mean it should be included, I think hes just trying to be friendly to visitors of his website. If publications or other reliable sources refer to hims as "rms" then I agree it should be mentioned. --GateKeeperX (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's well known among the Free Software community. Just do a Google search [1]. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
His abbreviated name is heavily used in correspondence. I can't imagine it would be difficult to find a reliable source which pointed out that it was the form predominantly used within the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello,

I have a question for the maintainers/administrators of this article. Is the infobox protected?
--Grandscribe (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

SAT score?

"Stallman scored 1597 on the SAT (800 Math, 797 Verbal)."

Is 797 even a possible score? I thought it was in increments of 10. Mathnerd314 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a while ago, so things may've changed. And even were that so then, doesn't the SAT have negative points for when you get a question wrong? (Although if 800 is perfect, I'm unclear how that would work.) --Gwern (contribs) 14:12 20 March 2009 (GMT)
It was me, who added the information about rms's SAT score in the first place.
Now it seems like someone removed it, saying that "SAT scores always end in 0, so the claim seems totally made-up.)"
In fact, I got this info from rms himself and I quote: "That was 800 math and 797 or 794 verbal."
I don't think rms is joking about it. Anyone can email him and check.
Also here is the list of scores of different celebrities, which demonstrates that not all SAT scores end in 0 (unless this list is also "totally made-up"):
http://www.powerscore.com/sat/help/celebrity_scores.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im5858 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Qt/Java/Javascript trap(s)

Stallman is well-known for getting GNOME off the ground to pressure Qt into a free license, for discouraging free software written in Java until a free JDK and JVM were available, and now for identifying the "Javascript trap" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html ). These activities don't appear to be in the article.

Can I add a section saying, basically, that Stallman has run out of bigger problems to worry about with the release of GPL 3 and is therefore leading a crusade against non-free Javascript? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.121.199 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx?

Is it just me or does this guy look like Karl Marx? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.106.153 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is is brother: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&oldid=284508376#Early_years :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.105.4 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

jewish2

someone should atleast mention that "he is from jewish ancestry but doesn't practice the religion, define himself by that ancestry, or socially focus on jewish culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiftach T (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

it is like Mark Zuckerberg case, i am writting this dawn. Yiftach T (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a comment above, referencing this one, I'm in agreement but too lazy/unsure where to edit. Whoever maintains this article regularly should add it please.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. His ancestry is of no proven relevance to himself or to the general public. An encyclopaedia is no place to define people by blood (as is already being done in the notes at the bottom of the page...) simply for the purpose of doing so. Feketekave (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this.. why is everyone in wikipedia so bloody obsessed with pointing out if someone is Jewish or of Jewish descent or not... Who gives a fsck.. you don't see 90% of the articles saying person X is of Christian descent ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.173.131 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I'm going to go ahead and just remove this section. As far as I can see there not really any point to having it, as the entire section (literally) is about some minor tizzy that happened on a few blogs a month ago, when someone took offense to a joke he made. In the scope of an article about Stallman's life, the event is meaningless, and if this event or removed or reduced the section would be empty. Currently it's about 40% as long as the Activism section which is just ridiculous. The fact that the article is basically an accusation of sexism and Stallman is a living person doesn't help much either. If anyone still thinks some blogger's personal outrage over a joke matters in a few years time, I'll be amazed. --A scientist (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to a reliable source. I'm afraid I'll have to revert you if you remove it. Yworo (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's sourced or not isn't the issue, the issue is it's of no value to the article. It's some blogger's opinion piece on why he thinks Stallman is sexist based on some joke made at a conference. That doesn't belong in an article like this. --A scientist (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Really? Other articles have controversy sections. News is news. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article is question is being referenced on other news sites:

I'd completely agree with you if this had remained in the blogosphere. But it hasn't. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If a bunch of guys on DailyKos got together and accused Bill O'Reilly of being a Satan worshipper, and some idiot wrote an article about their blogs, should we add a section to O'Reilly's article about the "Satan worshipping controversy"? Unless the controversy itself contributes to the notability of Stallman (which it does not) I don't see the value in violating the neutrality of a biographic article by putting a bunch of off-the-cuff personal attacks in a section and calling that a "controversy". It's not neutral, and it's not relevent to Stallman's notability.
Of the 3 articles you linked to (one is just a link to the same article), two are in the blogging/rumor sections of those websites. Only the FSDaily one is not. Regardless, the presence some article on a website is not an argument that it should also appear in an encyclopedia article. --A scientist (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So far, you haven't provided a valid reason why it should not, IMO. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There are at least two reasons: 1) It's not neutral. 2) It's not relevent in any encyclopedic way to the article. I don't see why the opinions of some random bloggers on Stallman should be here, especially when their opinions are actually accusations of bigotry. Yes, some website did an article about all this talk that was going on. I don't think that's a good reason to include it. In the big picture of what an encyclopedia article on someone like Stallman should be, I don't think it belongs. The same would go for blogger gossip on any celebrity or important person. --A scientist (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be neutral, it's the article that has to be neutral by including both the positive and the negative. Second, it's not "some random blogger" as you put it. It's a member of the GNOME Advisory Board which was one of the groups that invited Stallman to speak. This is his host at the conference complaining. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's still just some individual's speculation or opinion about something which is inherently I think a pretty serious accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, it doesn't mean those opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. I think having some article and at the end saying, "by the way, these people think he's a sexist" does make the article not neutral, because it's giving space to negative opinions that have no reason to be in the article other than that someone expressed them. The fact that someone thinks Stallman is sexist, is not an encyclopedic fact about Stallman. It's someone's opinion. --A scientist (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Cited opinions about someone are entirely pertinent to the article, so long as they are presented as opinion, which they were. The only reason I've not returned it is that I'm checking with the BLP team to be sure that the source meets their reliable sourcing criteria. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.... seems Stallman has a pattern. He writes here that, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." I don't know about you, but I find that pretty scary. Yworo (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a "Blogger Roundtable" section to all our biographic articles here on Wikipedia, where (well cited, of course) quotations from the blogosphere can earn their place in articles. Because if someone said it once, it's important to the article. One FreeRepublic user was quoted as saying "Obama is a porch monkey nigger", I think this is important to Obama's article, so now all we need to do is get a website to quote it. --A scientist (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just being ridiculous. Conversation over. If BLP approves the source, I'll be restoring the section as it is pertinent to the subject's public speaking career when his conference hosts have a problem with his presentation to the extent that they plan never to invite him back to speak again. (You did read the whole article, didn't you?) Yworo (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's ridiculous because it's your exact logic with regard to this section, which is also ridiculous. The fact that some person somewhere holds an opinion about someone, does not merit its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. He invited him to a conference, so? Should we also put in here what his best friends all think of him? His favorite high school teacher? --A scientist (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This occurred during the keynote presentation at the conference. He wasn't just joking around in the hallway. Yworo (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that he told a joke during a presentation may be fact, but a bunch of opinion and speculation regarding sexism is still just that. An encyclopedia article is not a collection of various individuals personal opinions about someone. --A scientist (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That the remark itself was sexist is an objective fact. And that's what was reported. It did not go on to generalize to say that Stallman is sexist. Though of course that seems probable. Yworo (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The remark was not "objectively" sexist, it didn't even mention a gender. However, even if he did specifically tell an intentionally sexist joke, that would not warrant a 5-paragraph "Controversy" section full of the opinions and speculations of various bloggers about the matter. --A scientist (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It did mention gender. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? "The virgin of Emacs is any female who has not yet learned how to use Emacs. And in the church of Emacs we believe that taking her Emacs virginity away is a blessed act." Yworo (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I missed that he used female specifically. However, whether or not any given person finds the remark sexist is still not relevent. What's relevent is whether or not these opinions belong in an encyclopedia article, which they don't. What any random individual thinks about Stallman or something he said is not important, notable or relevent. And it's especially not important when it violates the neutrality of the article. --A scientist (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that difficult to swallow when we already have a paragraph about developers who think he is difficult to work with. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between that, and a whole section full of direct quotations, emotive language and accusations of bigotry. Accusing someone of being hard to work with is very differcent from accusing them of being sexist, racist, etc. Giving time to those kinds of opinions, which essentially cannot be defended against except by denial, is much more serious. --A scientist (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The denial was included. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another tack

Why is this all being segregated into a "controversies" section? This is always a bad idea on BLPs because they attract cranks like flypaper. Any moments of controversy should be incorporated into the article body as a whole. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yworo (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this should be in the article at all. One not-particularly-prominent website claimed that one of Stallman's remarks was sexist, then a few other blogs repeated it. That doesn't meet WP:BLP in my opinion and it also doesn't meet WP:UNDUE. If this gets reported in the mainstream tech media (bylined reporters, not blogs), then it might merit a mention, but not until then. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The source was a bylined reporter. He was reporting on what happened at the conference, in the blogs, and Stallman's response. I'm sure he won't be the only one reporting on this. As soon as there is a second source, it'll be back in. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noted three bylined stories on this: Bruce Byfield's, Thom Holwerda's, and Sam Varghese's. The Desktop Summit (the co-located GUADEC and AKaDEmy conferences) isn't particularly a press-covered event, as is true of most free software community conferences. There is ample substantiation that the remarks were made, and equally ample substantiation as to the reaction. Since it seems that Stallman has been telling the joke which led to the controversy for ten years now, during which time "no one ever complained about it", that there no mention of this incident at all in this article when people clearly are complaining about it, and that it's being dismissed as a "minor tizzy" is beginning to seem a bit worrisome, frankly. It looks a little like an attempt to whitewash. kamisori_hanzou (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least with respect to me, you're preaching to the choir, brother (or sister, as the case may be). Yworo (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have the controversy section back. I don't really understand all those arguments against it. The bloggers and those articles may be opinions of some people, true. And as an encyclopedia, opinions do not count, so we should not portray them as true. But the fact that his talk has indeed created a controversy, is just that, a fact. And it's proven by the articles, blogs and so on. So while the controversy might be not founded, indeed the it's a fact that it does exist. So it should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.0.117 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

42

Easy solution is to edit in one sentence: "Wherever rms goes, there goes controversy." JackWoehr (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stallman has never married.

I can see why.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.64.86 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic? wow, he never married this changed my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.81.47 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He did advertise for a girlfriend on Craig's List a few years ago. I never heard whether he found one, but it's not that hard when you're famous. Bostoner (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing that Stallman is difficult to work with

I have come here from the BLP noticeboard. I have to say that the sourcing for the disputed section doesn't look good enough, at least for what it's trying to say. I think it is better to describe these issues as "disputes". All the parties are notable insofar as they all have wiki articles, but it seems that the section takes sides by labelling Stallman as difficult to work with.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article try to claim that Stallman is difficult to work with. The only relevant statement is "a number of developers view Stallman as being difficult to work with". I don't know how you could read the sources cited and not come to believe that that statement is verified by them.  Skomorokh  08:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Now this is an example of fundamentally inappropriate sourcing combined with making a direct claim about a living person.  Skomorokh  08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The section as it is written and as Skomorokh wants to keep it clearly reveals an intention to portray Stallman negatively as a "person difficult to work with". The use of links to E-mails by Drepper who himself has been heavily criticized by the developers contributing to glibc due to his very poor and bad communication skills and inability to work in civil way (this is documented) and which caused a fork and by Raymond, that to be fair, has been also heavily criticized for his sexist, egocentric and racist remarks(also documented) to conclude that Stallman is "difficult to work with from a political, interpersonal, or technical standpoint" clearly violates NPOV policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is not about Drepper; it's not about Raymond; it's about Stallman. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Raymond is a sexist egocentric racist – what does that tell us about whether or not he thinks Stallman is difficult to work with? Absolutely nothing. As to your claim that "The section as it is written and as Skomorokh wants to keep it clearly reveals an intention to portray Stallman negatively as a "person difficult to work with""; not only are you assuming bad faith on my part, you're completely off base as my addition of the Leonard reference shows. For a biography of this length not to cover Stallman's renowned personality would be a failure of comprehensiveness and of neutrality, something we need to be extra mindful of considering his association with the Wikipedia project. Please put your unfounded accusations aside and debate the substance of the content.  Skomorokh  08:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) I have had a closer look at the Jamie Zawinski link, and I don't see a major dispute, at least not one that could be characterised without OR. Perhaps I missed something, but none of Zawinski's postings attack Stallman as being difficult to work with - just disagreeing with how he wants things done in some software. The Eric Raymond piece describes a dispute not on working together as such, but on legal issues. The Ulrich Drepper piece certainly describes a personal dispute, but we don't have Stallman's side for it. The nature of each dispute is different, which makes it hard to pick up a theme of difficulty without SYNTH/ OR in general.
Looking around the internet for comments on Stallman, it does seem clear that there are people that really don't like him. For example, this page is interesting for the emotions Stallman generates. True as that may be, we need to use proper RS sources and remember WP:UNDUE for individual opinions. I haven't read Free as in Freedom but we really need to be looking into that kind of 3rd party sourcing before we add stuff like this. BLP sourcing rules are stricter for negative material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think User:Gwen Gale has done a nice job now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
VsevolodKrolikov, I agree with you. Gwen has done a good job.--Grandscribe (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

← I too agree about GG's edit, and I've taken it further by deleting the refs to Drepper's message (because IMO it's not relevant enough) and ESR's article (because it's not about Stallman himself, only about free-software vs open-source-software). The paragraph now needs copy-editing, but I think the level of detail (brief mention of the Lucid Emacs fork plus quote from Salon.com) is pretty much right.

I also added wikilinks to Emacs, GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Debugger, because his accomplishments in creating these historically significant programs deserve mention in this article, IMO. (The pattern of implementing big applications by developing a domain-specific language — eg., Javascript and XUL in Mozilla apps — was basically due to Emacs' use of elisp.)

As mentioned above, there are lots of people out there who really dislike RMS, so we have to expect bad edits here. Best wishes to all those who keep this article in good shape — CWC 11:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if there's very good RS about people disliking him, it could go in. But RS would have to be someone commenting on other people's dislike, not their own.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_9&oldid=1137157400"