Talk:Richard Stallman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Stallman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Flag of New York City
Portal:NYC
 NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Portal:Free software
 Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
Richard Stallman is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →
An individual covered in this article, Richard Stallman, has edited Wikipedia as
Rmstallman (talk • contribs).

The fact that Rmstallman (talk • contribs) is indeed Richard Stallman has been verified via email several times. Rl
Richard Stallman is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Richard Stallman as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic or Astur-Leonese language Wikipedias.

ToDo Box updated - Lentower 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To-do list for Richard Stallman: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

On the way to going for "Featured Article" status.
Please mark these CURRENT as they are done. - Lentower 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Implement a consistent organizational scheme and design. As it is, the article has the same feel as a piece of software, that has been worked on by a number of teams over time. E.g. the Pastel compiler that rms first wanted to use as the base for GCC. - Lentower 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent writing style. As it is, the article has the same feel as a piece of software, that has been worked on by a number of teams over time. E.g. the Pastel compiler that rms first wanted to use as the base for GCC. I.e. the formatting, writing style, tenses, grammar, etc., are all varied and inconsistent. - Lentower 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Citations, Wiki links, and WWW links:
    • Resolve duplicate citations and diffferences between them in these places: {{cite}}s, Publications section, and References section. - Lentower 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Check that links to the same source are consistent in style and use. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • CURRENT - Lentower 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC) - Convert all "[http://...]" links to <ref>[http://..." links so only one kind of "[1]" vs "[1]" is in article. Having two series of these is confusing. And the "[http:..]" links do not have entries in the "References" section as expected. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Convert all "<ref>[http:..]" links to "<ref{{cite..." links for style consistency.- Lentower 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Make sure all relevant fields in the "{{cite...}}" template are filled out.- Lentower 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Check that all the links are active, and still make sense to be included in the article. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Carefully go through the article to see if more Wikilinks, including "<ref{{cite..." links are needed. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deal with "Categories: Articles with unsourced statements". - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No one from the WP Biography Projects has rated the article. I.e. no one has added values for "class" and "importance" to {{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}} on this Talk page. Get this done first. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Shorten the article as suggested by Wikipedia:Article_size, which is at the top of each edit of this article. Perhaps by forking off one or more new articles. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do a good check over the category space to see if there are others that could be added or created. E.g. "Massachusetts Institute of Technology Researchers" is one he fits in. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Too many points in Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article? are not meet. Go through the entire article versus these points. Here is a summary of what's needed, but see Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article? for full details - Lentower 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • 1a. The article is well-written. This will be the first objection to FA status.
    • 1b. The article is comprehensive.
    • 1c. The article cites sources.
    • 1d. The article is neutral, and hasn't been contested in awhile.
    • 1e. The article is stable and not the subject of edit wars.
    • 2. The article complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects
    • 2a. The article's intro is fine.
    • 2b. The article's headings are proper.
    • 2c. The TOC is proper.
    • 3. The images are appropriate and have proper copying permissions.
    • 4. The article may need trivial facts removed.
  • Check if there are any bots that should be asked to scan the page. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • His membership to teleSur advisory committee is out of context. It should be in the honors section, or there should be an expansion on Stallman's work with the Bolivarian government of Venezuela that provides the context. --72.92.129.247 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete it to keep Article Size down? - Lentower 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe we need a section or sub-section on "Memberships"? - Lentower 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think a memberships section is necessary. --71.161.222.144 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last checks

  • Check that the content throughout the article is in the right section. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Put the entire page through a good spell checker. Might be a WP bot, that could be asked to scan the page. - Lentower 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The source code can be sent through any spell checker. --71.161.222.144 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Trivia section

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I have removed this (formerly this) addition by Pakaran which reads:

"Stallman's personal homepage has "action items" much like some political party and action group sites, often taking a far-left perspective; he typically updates these items daily.".

Firstly i think that it doesn't belong in the trivia section at all, a trivia section should contain knowledge which is not commonly known even by those who are familiar with the man, such as that he meant to name GNU Hurd Alix and that he gave POSIX its name, something which would be obvious to anyone after clicking the first external link in this very article does not fit that.

Secondly think that the contents themselves are vague and just factually wrong, "often take a far-left perspective", most of what stallman puts in these action items have to do with human rights which I don't think anyone would call far-left. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:06, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I think some of his sources have an anti-Bush bias. If that kind of topic doesn't belong in the article in any case, than that's true :) --Pakaran. 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was mainly the 9/11 conspiracy theories I was thinking of. However, the fact that he updates his page daily is not that important in any case. I'm just back here because that addition is one of the things I significantly regret of what I've done on WP. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the trivia, I believe sources should be cited for each claim made there, especially the most recent one. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:58, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
The Conlon Nancarrow pica is mentioned in this Bruce Sterling interview. There's already a reference for the Sussman paper. Another collaboration ("Heuristic techniques in computer-aided circuit analysis") is mentioned twice in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. "St. IGNUcius" and POSIX are trivially Googleable. [1] [2] --chocolateboy 19:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I heard the trivia that was deleted (that rms never owned a computer) from rms himself at a conference he gave at the École Polytechnique in 2002. --Sam 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stallman has a habit of referring to those who don't subscribe to his terminology as "ignorant."
  • Has developed a reputation of being something of a prima donna.
  • Stallman named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then- (and only) girlfriend.
OK, I do know Stallman is a bit touchy on the whole free software vs. open source software thing, and the GNU/Linux vs. Linux. But these trivia points seem like digs on him. The 1st two are obvious, the third I'm more concerned about the fact that "Alix" was his only girlfriend. Does anyone have any sources to back these up? (the 2nd point might be hard to find sources). Note that the first two (and subsequent others dealing with his hardline stance on terminology was all done by 65.168.18.72) --Bash 04:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bash, Alix was most definitely not his only girlfriend. Hell, Free as in Freedom closes with the author and his wife having dinner with Stallman and his (starting 2001; current status unknown) girlfriend Sarah. --Maru (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia part 2

What the hell is going on here? 65.168.18.72 reposted the "prima donna" accusation again:

  • "Is widely regarded as something of a prima donna, especially when it comes to terminology. Stallman is on record as requiring interviewing journalists to use his particular terminology throughout their articles if they wish to interview him. As a result, many journalists refuse to interview him at all."

It's milder, but still an attack on Stallman.

Who cares if it's an attack? He's a demagogue and needs to be put out of our misery. Your wimpy attitude is only going to mean he succeeds. Watching Hitler's armies march through Europe - 'we must be sure to do the right thing'.

[And now the famous theorem is proved again. ;P]

EDIT: Alright, I deleted the attack, but 65.168.18.72, two things
  1. Don't call him a prima donna. That's a personal attack.

No, it's a bloody fact, you turnip.

  1. Please back up the statement that Stallman refuses to be interviewed unless his terminology is used throughout the interview. This sounds plausible, but I need sources to back it up. --Bash 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I used to work for the FSF - Stallman would in fact set pre-conditions such as using "GNU/Linux"

This has to stop. Stallman is such a loser - who only attracts other losers. He was totally incapable of producing his own FOSS Unix. Linus, a REAL PROGRAMMER, had no trouble. Stallman tries to steal Linus' product. Enough is enough. Send Stallman to the bath house to get rid of that foul odor, give him a haircut, get him laid for the first time in thirty years, AND BANISH HIM FROM THE ONLINE COMMUNITY.

and "free software" for interviews. That is completely true, at least as of 2001-2002. It was his way of getting people to use those terms, using the leverage of whether he would grant an interview or not. --Brianyoumans 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you, but we can't include original research in WIkipedia. Let's see if we can find a third party source, such as a journalist, that talks about this. Nandesuka 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I found this page ("Stallman recently refused to be interviewed for Salon magazine unless the operating system would be called GNU-Linux."). It would be better if we could find something confirming this by the Salon reporter in question. Nandesuka 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I chased down the relevant quote: here:

And although Torvalds released the kernel of his operating system well before GNU produced a reliable one of its own, Stallman insists Torvalds' work should properly be called GNU/Linux, because early contributors adapted GNU components for Linux - never mind that the Linux core is non-GNU and now approaches 6 million lines of code. (Stallman declined to be interviewed unless this article used his nomenclature throughout.)

"Reported in Wired" is notable enough for me. Nandesuka 04:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Wired have printed a very silly mistake. Stallman does not ask for Torvalds' work to be called "GNU/Linux". Stallman calls Linus' work "Linux". He uses "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" only for operating systems which are formed by adding Linux to GNU. IMO, wired could still be cited as the source for the claim that Richard turns down journalists who use the term "Linux" for operating systems made by combining GNU and Linux, but if a less silly source could be found, it should replace Wired's silly article. I also know it to be true that Richard turns down journalists who do things which he thinks harm the free software movement, such as calling GNU "Linux" or saying that Richard supports "open source", and I think he even blacklists them. Gronky 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Cont'd

Lots of these items are worthless, and many of them belong in the copy of the article... at the moment it reads like a lazy schoolboy essay written in bullet-point form.

Examples:

  • "Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring." -- Hardly trivia since it describes his main motivations. It needs to be sourced and written into the article copy, or removed.
  • "POSIX" -- again, hardly trivia. It needs to be sourced and included in the article copy or removed.
  • "He cannot swim" -- big deal. This is relevant how?
  • "He can't program in Java" -- relevant how? He has talked about "The Java Trap" in the past. If the article had part discussing his objections to Java, it might be relevant there. As it is, it's just a rather pointless factoid.
  • "Right Management System" -- pointless bit of cruft, unless Microsoft chose the name specifically to irk him, and I don't think they did.
  • "Linus Torvalds said: 'Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer' -- interesting, but not for a trivia section. More appropriate if written into the article section discussing his relationship with Linux. -Motor (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Most of these points -- Java, POSIX, Linus, philosophy -- need to be moved and/or expanded on, not deleted. Until they are expanded on, they should stay, as a form of "stub". --GRuban 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of the most obviously poor entries (I'm waving on the SF entry... it should probably go too, unless it is a major influence on him).. I added the fact template to others -- without sources for these, they should be removed. Additionally, as I said above, once these items are sourced many of them should be written into the article rather than left in a shoddy bullet-point form. -Motor (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
All of those, except the Java and influences ones, cna be sourced to at least Free as in Freedom. --maru (talk) contribs 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section. The article has a bibliography of which people should be familiar before questioning the article's accuracy, and it has been edited (and verified) by the article's subject, so let's not get too obsessed with the this section. Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section.--71.241.138.70 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section." -- the Trivia section is an eye-sore on this article. "Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section" -- What does this have to do with requesting cites for the facts in the trivia section, and removing obviously irrelevant nonsense to tighten up a poorly-structured article? Not to mention requesting that many of trivia section entries are not trivia at all, but substantive claims that should be written into the article rather than left as bullet-points. It's not a matter of accuracy, so much as tidying up a bad article and wanting the information in it verified to a higher standard. That's why I've re-reverted you... anon IP editor. BTW: by adding the fact template I'm requesting more than just "it came from this book"... preferably a page number so it can be easily verified by others... there are too many people adding crap to this article to trust just one person, especially if they happen to be an anon-IP editor. -Motor (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Java entry can be considered confirmed by Stallman- I think he may even have been the one who added it in. Of course, then there is concern about verifiability... --maru (talk) contribs 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the Java entry (again), because this is an encyclopedia. If RMS, or any other editor, wants to make clever puns, I suggest they start a weblog, not use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic content. Nandesuka 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The trivia section is definitely not an eyesore. The article is probably one of the higher quality biographical articles on the site. Although silly, the trivia section is fine and people have been distracted by it (or instead the criticism section) while the main biographical material has not been verified by the same standard (proof by RMS's fixes). These pleas to make the article more "encyclopedic" fall flat when paper encyclopedias are not required to have footnotes and don't have trivia sections. If having trivia sections doesn't prescribe to your sensibilities, then I'm sorry to hear that. But don't use fact checking to enforce your motives. Further, attempting to find a compromise by merging trivia items into the main article will likely result in an article with poor style. People familiar with Stallman (or Stallman himself) have and will continue to speak up when inaccuracies exist. This current exercise is futile and wasteful. You win the edit war; I'll just surrender. --65.19.87.53 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core speech

"explainging the proposed changes became a core speech." -- typo aside, 'core speech' sounds like a bit of opaque management-speak. If by "core", you mean that explaining the changes to the GPL is one of the most important parts of his agenda when speaking, then it needs to be stated clearly and in plain English. - Motor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can smooth the wording, please do. My meaning is that before 2006, he had 3 speeches (each with a seperate topic) that he gave over and over again. Now, he has a 4th speech, and during 2006 he will give it over and over again. Gronky 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts in Criticism

Hi, 64.222.109.153 and 71.241.136.108 (are you one person or two?) Thanks for helping out; I see you think the number of sources on the Emacs/XEmacs split here should be limited and the others moved to XEmacs.

I don't much mind where that material goes (except that XEmacs is a little messy at present.) But I do ask you to be more careful in your reverts. Each of you now (or you, twice, as the case may be) has, while cutting down the discussion of the Emacs conflict, reverted edits I made that clarified text, labeled links, and fixed typos. As you might imagine, I find this a little frustrating.

After the first instance, I made a comment at User_talk:64.222.109.153, but in hindsight I suppose that wasn't the right place. =) I am a little new around here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


I restored again the edits unrelated to XEmacs. Please don't revert them (unless you have a reason, in which case please give it here.)

I made a new rewrite of the XEmacs text, too, for two reasons:

  • Stallman wasn't "at the center" of the split; necessarily it had two ends, and he was just one of them.
  • The link to JWZ's email archive should be labeled.

If you think the resulting text is too long, please go ahead and tighten it. But please don't just revert it without discussing it here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your initial rewrite was good, except for the formatting, and 71.241.136.108 should not have deleted it. I've restored the Xemacs discussion that lists Ben Wing's, Zawinski's, etc. criticisms separately. I think devoting a few sentences to the topic is not excessive. Nandesuka 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about ignoring Gnp's grammar fixes. I thought I had moved things pretty close to as-is to XEmacs, and reverted sentences back to a form agreeable for some time (In Wikipedia time at least). The material belongs at XEmacs not just because it duplicates material, but its more notable at the XEmacs article. The poor quality of the XEmacs article is only reason to improve it, not to avoid putting your contributions there.

Links that serve as references don' always have link text. I'd think it could result in poorly chosen link names and make external links appear like Wikipedia entries. There could be a Wikipediai guideline on this, but it contradicts the style in this article. --71.241.136.108 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lesser and other

The "Lesser terminology issues" was given that name because Stallman places less emphasis on correcting them. They are words he avoids, and he will correct them in certain situations, but he is less pedantic about them than he is about the big three: "GNU/Linux", "free software", and "Intellectual Property". Gronky 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then they should be part of the pre-existing Terminology section with an explanation similar to the one above. They don't need their own section. - Motor (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bezroukov tirade/external link

Does anyone have something to say for this link that was on the page?

It's sharply and overtly POV, thick with speculation and innuendo, so it's not much of a reference. There's no indication it's had any particular influence,which would make it interesting and the POV merely part of the exhibit.

In policy terms, it's well described by the first item in Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. --Greg Price 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It's been pretty steadily added by anons and removed by users over the last several months. --maru (talk) contribs 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interviews

The "Interviews" sub-section is within the "References" section and it contains a lot of external links. How many of them were actually used as references to add facts to the article, and how many have just been added without a good reason? - Motor (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fluent French

I'm not a native French speaker, but after listening to a recording of Stallman speaking French, hearing his terrible American accent and his floundering for words with "uh, uh..., uh", I really wouldn't say he speaks the language "fluently".

Edit: In this recording of RMS's French that I'm listening to, he actually stops the speech to ask someone how to say a certain word in French. Hardly "fluent".

rms makes the same pauses you're talking about when speaking spanish. I've never heard him speaking in french, but you said it, he's fluent, not very fluent nor native. Technical things have a lot of tech/jargon words that are not so easy to remember :)
--Licurgo 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the "uh, uh, ..,uh" is a French colloquialism, any they spell it "euh". In English we jam in short (under-pronounced) phrases to fill in gaps while we think, in French they say a drawn out "euh". As far as I can guess, this feature in each language is to indicate to others that your not finished your sentence. (I don't know about Spanish.)
In the speech you probably listened to, he asks a French speaker for two words. The verb "to lump together", and something about the pantone colour system. If being stuck for two words when talking for over an hour means you're not fluent, then I am fluent at no languages.
When speaking in English, he wouldn't have the option of asking someone for help with a word, so no one will get the opportunity to point out that he doesn't speak fluent English. Sure, his French isn't perfect, but it is fluent, or near-fluent at worst. Editing the article to say that "he claims" to speak fluent French is ignoring the evidence of his actual level of French - we don't have to rely on, or report, his claims, we have real evidence that is is fluent (or "near-fluent" if you are willing to say the same about native French speakers who get stuck for a word every now and then). Gronky 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanish doesn't even have a euh sound, dont know what they do but nothing remotely like euh which is very French. Technical terms between English and Latin languages aren't normally hard to remember as the Latin languages will say Spanishize or Portuguesize a technical term from the English. There is an enormous difference between genuinely fluent and being perfect in another language and it sounds like Stallman is indeed fluent. Ras Billy I 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Physics Degree

I think it's important to mention that rms was hacking at the >same< time he was getting a magna cum laude degree in physics, when some people in mit (some "hackers") were absorbed by the hacking and did nothing else. Some of them even loose mit courses because they were hacking so hard.

What I mean, is that rms is not just a or the "philosopher" of gnu and free software like Linus Torvalds says in the movie Revolution OS, he's also a very good programmer (emacs, gnu C compiler, etc.)


"Richard was often in night phase, and when the people in the lab discovered after the fact that he was simultaneously earning a magna cum laude degree in physics at Harvard, even those master hackers were astonished."

from: [[3]] from the book Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution

So i think this should be added. --Licurgo 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stallman's reply to a Torvalds quote, through Wikipedia itself

On 15th November 2005, Stallman edited his own article, adding a reply to Linus Torvalds has opined that while GNU/Linux may be an appropriate name for a GNU-based distribution, using that name for Linux in general is "just ridiculous.". That he replied is factual, and it is recorded in the article's history. The reply, however, has since been removed somewhere along the line.

I believe his reply (Stallman only recommends the term "GNU/Linux" for combinations that include the GNU system.) to be quite relevant and that it should be included for the sake of thouroughness and maintaining neutrality. Thus, I added it back in a slightly different manner: In reply, Stallman notes that he only recommends the term 'GNU/Linux' for combinations that include the GNU system.

This begs for a source, though; so, I added the link to Stallman's edit to Wikipedia, in the form of a footnote. It was he who wrote it - the fact that the medium in which he did so happens to be Wikipedia is, IMO, not relevant to the case. The footnote was removed by Nandesuka (first in this edit and later by Motor after someone else put it back in), under the reasoning of Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia can never be a source for itself.. While I do agree that Wikipedia can never be a source for itself, I would submit that in this case this would not apply: it is not Wikipedia who is being quoted, it is Richard Stallman (who is the subject of the article). He happened to write the reply in the Wikipedia site, yes, but I would still say that: 1) it is factual that he wrote it (as long as we believe User:Rmstallman is indeed Stallman and that his account was not compromised, etc); and 2) it is relevant to the case in hand (it is a reply by the subject to an accusation of ridicule a specific claim). It would seem logical to quote it, regardless of where it is written.

Capi 10:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no way of knowing that the Wikipedia user named User:Rmstallman is actually RMS. You have no basis to believe that it's him, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. Using the comments of Wikipedia editors as sources for articles violates both WP:RS, WP:NOR, and the general principle that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. No doubt RMS has made similar replies elsewhere that are published in some reliable, verifiable source. Refer to those, not to some random Wikipedia editor's comment. Nandesuka 12:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The best way to know if the user 'Rmstallman' is really RMS is to email him at rms@gnu.org to confirm it yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.45.169 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC).
I bet he get TONS of spam. I wonder how he filters out spam? Family Guy Guy 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have found another source from which the same information can be directly concluded. I have rewritten the sentence (nowhere is it mentioned in the source that this is in response to Torvalds, so I lost the "in reply" bit) and added the new source. On an unrelated matter, the sources and links in the article could use some cleaning up - external links in the ugly [4] format are mixed with reference notes, causing havoc with the note numbering system. Capi 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you need to read WP:NOR again. Wikipedia does not permit original research. We are not here to draw conclusions or inferences, but to be an encyclopedia. There are three problems with your addition. First, the cited source doesn't say what you claim it does. What it actually says is more similar to what is in the first sentence of the modified paragraph. Second, given that, adding material in rejoinder to Linux is redundant with that sentence. Third, and most importantly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RMS has made his argument, Linus has made his statements, and we are not a "referee" to adjudicate the truth (either by value judgments such as "this is not what Stallman believes, or by over/under coverage of a given point of view). Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I would say, however, that leaving the Torvalds comment there by itself without a rebuttal is over covering a given point of view... (at least the other unrelated Torvalds quote was removed) It is clearly irrelevant to what is said in the paragraph: the paragraph says Stallman wants people to use GNU/Linux to describe the combination of GNU + Linux, and we insert a quote by Torvalds saying "calling everything that has Linux on it GNU/Linux is just ridiculous". This is an article about RMS, not about examples of Torvald's flaming . The quote is criticising something which is said nowhere in the paragraph, it is standing on its own without debunking and it is the last word in said paragraph. Capi 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The article could also be converted to the new refs system too. - Motor (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been conversing with rms on the subject of this entry. He has asked me to add the reply to Linus Torvald's comment when it is deleted. I got the request directly from rms@gnu.org so I think it's legitimate to conclude that he thinks as stated. Ewlabonte 22:45 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your email is neither verifiable nor a reliable source, and is absolutely not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If and when RMS publishes such statements in a verifiable, reliable source, then it may become appropriate for inclusion in this article. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not here to act as a soapbox for its editors (or for the subjects of its articles), and we do not include original research. "I talked with the man myself and he said this was true" is the very definition of original research. Nandesuka 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You, know, I wonder if your motivations are purely based on quality control concerns. The statement isn't controversial. Not every clause in the article is backed up by references. However, Stallman made a statement at [5] which is not at all ambiguous.

[edit] Semi-protection

Because of the recent spate of edit warring over Stallman's pedophilia comments, and the related digg.com article, I have semi-protected the article. It would behoove us to discuss whether those comments merit inclusion here on the talk page. Nandesuka 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not include - The article's title and intent is obvious spin. The blog entry reads:
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
To conclude from this that the man supports pedophilia is ridiculous. 1) He is stating fact (that a pro-pedophilia party was formed in Holland) - this does not mean he supports it any more than Wikipedia having an article on pedophilia means that we support it. 2) He says he is skeptical of the claim that voluntarily (sic) pedophilia harms children. This does not mean he supports pedophilia (voluntary or otherwise) any more than him saying I am skeptical of the Iraqi's claim that the Bush forces have ordered troops to kill lots of Iraqis no matter who they are. means that he supports Bush (in fact he is widely known for opposing Bush). I could say, for example, that I am skeptical of the claim that nuclear weapons cause pain; this does not mean I am pro-nuclear weapons. Capi 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Actully biased URLS can can be added to the external links section. Wikipedia should state the fact that he has said "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing", the reader can then interpret his words themselves, Wikipedia does not need to censor it. Progressivenazism 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
His blog is full of statements and opinions, political, economical and social, controversial and otherwise. Why single this one out? What makes it notable? Where is this "controversy" and who are these "many people"? If you want to report fact (that he said what he said) that is one thing, but speculation on how people supposedly interpret it/should interpret it has no place in the article. And still, I would say again: why single out this particular quote, out of all the other ones in his blog? Is it perhaps because it is a loaded subject, which can easily be twisted with weasel words? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If anything, there should be a mention that he has a blog, that he posts his opinions there, that some of them can be considered controversial, and link to it. Capi 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to stay about the debate over external linking, but this statement is not supported and doesn't belong:

This caused some controversy [sic] because many people interpret Stallman's words as indication that he supports voluntary pedophilia.

And if the best people can author is that its stirred up "some controversy [sic]", then perhaps its not notable to mention. In my experience, Wikipedia is the only notable source of the controversy, and that puts Wikipedia in a position to motivate POV. I don't think we can cite the Wikipedia talk page as a source, either. If in 1 month or a year this does last as a "controversy" then we can put it back, but until then we should wait it out.

Wikipedia is not a personal blog. --69.54.29.23 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If this were to stay, it should be in an objective, descriptive form - state fact (what he said and when), leave the interpretations out of it. The section's title, "Pedophilia Controversy" should also be changed to something non-loaded. Personally I still think this should not be included; it's cherry picking (there are countless opinions expressed on his blog, many more openly controversial than this one), plus it's not relevant to his notability (see WP:BLP). Capi 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
First, there's no interpretation in the text at all, just facts. Second, it's notable because it has been reported on major news sites such as Digg, so no, wikipedia talk page is not the only source of controversy. http://digg.com/linux_unix/Richard_Stallman_supports_voluntary_pedophilia
Anarchopedia 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I edited that paragraph before I saw there was a discussion here about it. Gronky 09:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
One thing worth keeping in mind while think about this is that, at a quick scan, the majority of comments on digg are criticising the digg article, or defending Stallman's comment. Gronky
From my drive-by perspective, perhaps writing a short section about Stallman's interest in political & social issues, where this blog entry is one of several examples of controversial or provocative statements, would be better. Having one comment singled out tends to focus the attention on it, which, in itself, could give the impression of POV. By broadening the section, this comment could be covered, but not in such a focused way.--Ssbohio 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, that would better by far than how it currently is. Capi 14:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Parent is right. The comments/blog citations section should be expanded and that particular comment should be included. Richie is a smart guy in my opinion and I like it when he comes out with first class trolls like that one. Did I mention Snape kills Dumbledore? -- Femmina 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date on Pedophilia Blog

I just visited the blog and the date the post was made appears to be June 5th, while the article quotes July 10th.

[edit] Time to remove it

The "controversy" never materialised. Maybe some were hoping or predicting it would snowball because it was related to a sensitive issue, but it didn't.

He made a comment, an Internet user submitted it to a widely-read user-submission site where it received a low number of votes (86 is not much on digg), where more than half of the comments were criticising the user-submission or defending Stallman's comment, and it quickly disappeared. Another Internet user then submits it to Wikipedia on the basis that it is a notable "controversy" in Stallman's life. Clearly it wasn't.

One positive outcome is that it has brought forward the idea of making a section on his political notes. This would indeed be a good idea. The topics which he talks about a lot should be mentioned. Those include Isreal, climate change, Bush, Iraq, "Bliar", Afganistan, species depletion, and police corruption. Gronky 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, remove section. There must be thousands of comments, posts, articles, blog entries and Slashdot flame festivals about Stallman throughout the Internet. What makes this 3-line piece noteworthy? The fact it addresses one comment he made out of countless others, in his blog which is already full of much more controversial things than that? Or is it the fact that it's a loaded topic that can easily be used to poison a person's public image? Will we include every single Slashdot thread over whether or not Stallman prefers dogs over cats? And give it its own section? A passing comment on a blog about a lateral issue that has nothing to do with the subject's work, life or career is not notable for inclusion in a biography. And it certainly does not deserve a full section for itself. It is nothing but cherry picking spin. Capi 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. It's annoying to have something like this instantly escalate in to a section of its own. Mob rule. Let's get rid of it.Rufus Sarsaparilla 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All the top result of a google search of "voluntary pedophilia" returns link to this story, so it's pretty noteworthy. 128.100.31.172 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Argumentum ad Google. Whichever way Google chooses to sort its results is irrelevant to whether or not this is a noteworthy inclusion in a biography on Richard Stallman. So there was a flamefest on digg about the topic du jour, big deal. 2 days after that there was probably another flamefest about whether or not the aliens are really green. Will we include every Slashdot flamefest now too? Or will we just include the ones that are ridiculously slanted and making deliberate misrepresentations of what they are quoting? Will we add every irrelevant random comment made by Joe Sixpack regarding him too? Might as well turn this into Google then. The fact remains, this is one insignificant remark out of a pool of thousands of remarks the man has made (many of which are much more relevant and can be truly called controversial, for better or for worse). It is not related to his life, career or work. It is not notable in any way other than some people seem bent on using loaded terms to misrepresent what he truly said, and that a few randoms on some digg thread argued for a little while about it. Capi 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You neglected to mention that a search for that term only returns 22 hits. All you've discovered is that that term has almost never been used before on the www. Gronky 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for researching this, Gronky. It doesn't really belong. --69.54.29.23 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actully Google returns 103,000 results for "voluntary pedophilia", and stallman's comment is the #1 result, so it should stay. I mean if Series of tubes can have it's own article, there's no reason why stallman's comment can't. 70.48.249.56 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, argumentum ad Google; irrelevant. And even if it weren't so, Google most certainly does not return anywhere near 103 results for "voluntary pedophilia", let alone 103,000 (quotes, people, quotes - don't search loose words). Arguing over Google hits is besides the point. Randoms trying to capitalize on one comment which they chose to interpret in a way that defies logic do not change the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The guy said he's skeptic that Bush's forces have ordered troops to kill lots of Iraqis; will we add a whole section saying he's a Bush supporter, too? Yeah, that would make lots of sense - about as much as these supposed pedophilia comments. I'm sure there must be some Slashdot flamewar out there arguing over whether his beard is black or brown; will we mention that too? Stallman's blog has hundreds of entries, will we make a section for each of them? Or just the ones that we can twist to label him with loaded words? Wikipedia is not Google. This is not notable, it has been debated for 2 weeks or more, and the ratio of remove to not-remove comments in the above above 2 sections is like 12-to-1. I'm taking it out again. Capi 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timely Photograph

I believe we should include a more timely photograph of RMS at the top of the article. Unless I am mistaken, the current one is not very timely, as I'm guessing he's somewhere in his thirties in that photograph, and at this time of writing he's actually 52. Dkrogers 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Maybe you can upload a new one?  :)
Done. Dkrogers 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents positioning

Is there a reason for the non-standard positioning of the contents? It is quite hard to find and, to my mind, not very aesthetic. However, I refrain from making any changes; maybe there actually is a reason for this. VladDogaru T C 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In my eyes, having the Table of Contents (ToC) on the right is much more aesthetic. It gets rid of the horrible blob of white space. Shortens more of the lines in the article making them easier to read. Doesn't require one to page over the TOC, to get back to reading the text, yet leaves it visible for those who want to use it. Gives both types of users something. And puts all the blocks of non-article on one side. And as someone with RSI, (Repetive Strain Injury) whose wrists hurt, I appreciate not having to use another keystroke to get past the white blob of useless screen waste. Are you sure the issue is you just aren't use to the alternative? Perhaps it really belongs on the left hand side under the Wikipedia menus (more wasted screen space), but that would have to be a WP wide decision. - Lentower 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for that discussion. TOCright needs to be used in specific cases. You're welcome to use a custom CSS style sheet for your RSI condition. It would apply to *all* articles you visit on Wikipedia, avoid adding TOCright to every one of your favorite articles, thus decreasing the chance of afflicting your RSI condition. Also, you don't need to type to convert the entire Wikipedia to use it. --71.169.129.244 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your solution for those of us who have RSI is to use more painful keystrokes to research and then write a custom CSS style sheet? I'm glad you have never had to deal with pain in your life. But that does not leave you in a position to tell me to endure more of it for your solution. It you can provide some URL links to exisiting style sheets and instructions on how to install them for use with Firefox or Internet Explorer, that would show some compassion. You have also not address the other reasons I listed. - Lentower 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was being compassionate by telling you about custom stylesheets. I also assumed you'd know to type "custom OR client stylesheet 'internet explorer' OR firefox" in your nearest search engine, rather than write another paragraph about it. --71.169.129.244 03:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Überhacker & Richard Stallman

The Überhacker article only talks about his name and that name isn't notable enough to have a stand-alone article. I even doubt it is notable enough to be on this page either but we'll see later. Lincher 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His father

"Stallman was born in Manhattan, New York, to Alice Lippman."... Who was his father? --Lhademmor 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gcc from Pastel to C

Please note that Len Tower's article is currently listed for deletion for the second time in a row. Please weigh in. LossIsNotMore 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets go for Featured Article

Thanks to years of heavy editing, with useful contributions from tens or hundreds of supporters and detractors, I now think we have this article in a really good state. I'd like to nominate it for Featured Article status, so in the next few days, if anyone wants to help, please read a section that you haven't read in a while, or read the whole article, and make clean-ups. IMO, small clean-ups are what are needed, not large rewrites, and smaller clean-ups will also keep the article more stable during these days while others are also tweaking this article. So lets go for Featured Article status. Gronky 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the criteria for a Featured Article: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?
I suggest we do our own review for 3 or 4 days, then nominate the article for Wikipedia:Peer review, and then make it a Featured Article candidate. Gronky 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe this article qualifies for FA status, especially given the way that the criticisms section has, over time, been bowlderized (the missing Zawinski criticisms, for example, are shameful). A hagiography shouldn't be a FA; specifically, this article still fails tests 1(d) and 1(e). Let's correct that before applying for FA. Nandesuka
Ok. I think the article stability is sufficient to pass the 1(e) review, but we'll just have to accept the decision of the FA reviewer on that. For 1(d), I think most people agreed that it was fine to include links to the accusations of Zawinski[6] and Drepper [7]. As long as neither event is blown out of proportion, they're fine links. I think the consensus on the Critisisms section was similar to that of the Trivia section: integrate it into the article. You're right that this article isn't fit to pass FA criteria today, but so much work has gone into it and there is so much information there, it's worth some review and to make it FA worthy. Gronky 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, actually the "shameful" omission of zawinski criticism is false. It's there in the 4th paragraph of the Lifestlye section, along with criticisms from Drepper and ESR. Gronky 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out; I searched for it earlier and didn't find it. I know at one point someone affiliated with the FSF was reverting it out of the articles hard and long. I assumed that that was still the case. It seems odd for me for professional criticisms of RMS to be in the "Lifestyle" section, incidentally. Nandesuka 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I think all the section headings in the "biography" section are in need of updating, but I can't think of handles that fit. Gronky 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This biography is far from the quality of a "Featured Article". I'm not sure it evens meets "Good Article".

Checklist moved to To Do box at top of page - Lentower 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By myself, getting this page to "Featured Article" quality would be about 40 hours of work over a few weeks. (Good writing and editing for me needs breaks for the sub-conscious to find solutions.) In the WP environment, where one usually has to spend more time building consensus, then in writing, it could be months to a year. And I have a life filled with higher priorities.

I'll make a few changes tonight that, IMHO, moves the article in the right direction.

best - Lentower 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this checklist. The answer to most or all of the "Has anyone..." questions is: No, that's what we're about to do. Don't worry about how long it will take. I'm confident that it can be done in vastly shorter time, and we can all maintain our higher priority activies. Gronky 10:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more:

  • rms may have done a third ground breaking paper at the MIT AI Lab. Should be chased down.
  • categories should be created for the Takeda Award and the Yuri Rubinsky Memorial Award
  • perhaps templates for both of those as well as the MacArthur and Hopper Awards.

- Lentower 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the Lisp machine manual? That was pretty important, but I can't think of anything else. --Gwern (contribs) 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember rms having more notable acheivements then anyone else on the timeline in LCS's 25th anniversary book, and I think there was a third paper there. I either have to find my copy or drop by the CSAIL reading room and check. - Lentower 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there are enough candidates for categories on the Takeda or Rubinsky awards to make them worthwhile - and both awards are finished now, so they won't even grow into a useful size. I have made a category for recipients of the EFF Pioneer Award though. Gronky 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Agenda???

Someone just posted that RMS has a hidden agenda. This claim is unsupported and if left on the page, needs to be supported with facts. I really don't think that there is a hidden agenda. RMS is pretty straight forward about what his intentions are. --lile 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that a while ago. --Gwern (contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hacker" label removed

RMS is also a hacker if there ever was one! So that should be added back in the page. -lile 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Its in the first paragraph. I haven't check the page history to see when/if it disappeared/got reverted back. - Lentower 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section Titles

The current layout of the page isn't great, and I think it's mostly a simple matter of more logical title positions and names. To think out loud, here are roughly the most notable things Richard has done, roughly in order:

  1. Birth, youth, early teens
  2. Discovered programming
  3. MIT Hacker lab
  4. emacs
  5. Symbolics
  6. GNU
  7. gcc
  8. FSF
  9. gdb
  10. copyleft
  11. GPLv1,2
  12. LfPF
  13. "GNU/Linux"
  14. "free" not "open source"
  15. DMCA
  16. "IP" terminology
  17. Software patents in Europe
  18. GPLv3 process, LGPL, FDL, SFDL processes
  19. DRM

Now, how can that be split into something more readable than a timeline... Maybe:

  1. Biography (early years and lifestyle)
  2. First discovering a computer, until pre-MIT-AI-lab
  3. MIT AI lab, Emacs introduced, including symbolics
  4. GNU project (including copyleft)
  5. Software: GNU Emacs, GCC, GDB, etc.
  6. Awareness, "GNU/Linux", then "free software" (vs "O.S."), public speaking
  7. Political work: LfPF, DMCA, software patents in the EU, w3c patent policy, etc. "IP"
  8. Recent work: DRM, GPLv3 (and LGPL, FDL, SFDL)

Gronky 5:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The common thread in rms' life is to build communities that produce and support free software. that be a good theme to structure his bio around.
  • "symbolics" is better conceptualized as the formation and breakdown of the Lisp Machine Group inside the MIT AI Lab. A great hacker commumnity that built itself and then was destroyed by the desire of some, that succeeded, to make free software non-free.
  • Most of Lifestyle's content is best understood after you have read the rest of the bio stuff. Move it to the end of your list?
- Lentower 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP is not a bibliography

I have read that Wikipedia is not a bibliography and concur with it as part of making WP an encyclopedia. Yet, in this article we have Richard_Stallman#Speeches and Richard_Stallman#Interviews sections with over a dozen listed in each section. And those lists are likely to keep on growing. Which adds to article size. And doesn't help the reader of the article to know which are most important to read.

Move them to two "List of" articles?
And/Or link to lists of these off WP? (Assuming that the FSF and/or someone else has such lists?

Pick two or three of the most notable, and preface each in-article list with a phrase something like "Here are just a few of the most notable X"?

Or ... ??

- Lentower 20:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Speeches and interviews are now at Wikiquote. --69.54.29.23 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra links to WikiQuote for Speeches and Interviews

Casual readers of Wikipedia will not realize that the WikiQuote article also has speeches and interviews. These extra links clues them into this.- Lentower 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia and not a link directory. I've moved the links to interviews and speeches to Wikiquote. Perhaps, we could start making it a custom to have such links at Wikiquote, so people know to look there. Regardless, the long list of links--though flattering--were unsightly and made the page quite larger. --71.161.217.80 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Good solution. I made the S+I move clear in the "External Links" section. Let's hope that WQ is a link directory! Templates like Template:Gutenberg would be useful for both Speeches and Interviews, particularly if you want to make this a WP practice. ;-} - Lentower 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the link to Gutenberg is very useful, since it only contains a link to Right to Read.

It might have more in time. Is Right to Read linked to where it's mentioned? - Lentower 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should duplicate the links to Wikiquote, one link is enough. I don't see it done elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's obvious enough that Stallman quotables are at Wikiquote. --71.161.219.24 04:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of these links are that links to "Speeches" and "Interviews" are kept in the Wikiquote article, both so reader know to look there, and new editors know to put them there. If you can find a way to do that with fewer words, perhaps a specialized version of the WQ template? - Lentower 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The complete list of talks should be on Wikiquote, but since he only has 4, it would be practical and useful to link to one of each. Gronky 03:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments:
  • The current description of RMS's four usual topics to talk on in the Activism section is OK. If he adds too many usual topics, it be best to highlight just a few of the most notable ones.
  • It's OK to have a speech as "<ref>{{cite"s, where that supports a statement in the article. Even then, it's better to have a link to clear text, as many WP readers, don't have audio/video players, or won't take the time to download a audio/video file.
  • Otherwise, having a list of speeches in the article is neither practical nor useful:
    • It increases article size of this overlong article, with info of little usefulness to most readers.
    • It just encourages the list of speeches to grow without bound.
    • And any one who is that deeply interested in RMS, will find and follow the links to Wikiquote. There is no need to save readers the effort of clicking that additional link. Lentower 17:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Richard only has 4 speeches, after 23 years. A list with 4 entries is not impractical, and those four speeches some up most of his digital-era freedom philosophy. There is probably nothing more informative that the article could link to. Gronky 17:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
RMS has given countless speeches on countless topics. He use to often speak on topics that he no longer speaks on. It's true that right now, he most often speaks on one of these four topics. But you're right, that the list of topics he most often speaks on, is unlikely to get to large to enumerate in the article. Lentower 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary?

I know there are a lot of things that need to be done, but one glaring issue seems to have been overlooked. The introduction:

Richard Matthew Stallman (abbreviated to RMS) (born 16 March 1953) is both an acclaimed activist and hacker.

is completely and totally pathetic. "Abbreviated to RMS"? By whom? Librarians and NRA members? "Activist"? Activist for what? Complete and utter destruction of the rainforest? "Hacker"? Okay, so is he wanted in seven and a half developed nations for breaking in to the World Bank's janitorial database?

I realize that this is a very controversial topic, so I won't make the changes (right now I don't have time, in any case), but what does everyone else think? — supreme_geek_overlord 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Overview section, right after the summary and Table of Contents, expands on both his activism and his hacking. It could move back into the introduction, but that moves the ToC several screens down the article. I just made a change to the "abbreviated to". - Lentower 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I truly doubt that the slight repositioning of the ToC is much of an issue. Remember, in many cases, that top section is the only part of the article that is read. Many readers are only interested in a tiny bit of background on him, so that they can have a context for something else they were interested in. I have never seen a page with an "overview" before, probably because that is the whole purpose of the summary section. I couldn't point out any specific place, but I'm sure this is well treated in the style manuals, etc.
In any case, an anonymous user aparantly already made these changes (it was not me), and they seem to be good. The only change I would suggest is something like "free software activist," rather than simply "activist." It gives quite a bit more context. Any reasons why this is a bad idea? — supreme_geek_overlord 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a bad idea, because rms is an activist in other fields beside free software (though the article doesn't go into that). And the article already makes his ""free software activism" clear by what it lists, both in the summary and throughout. It's also redundant - which is poor writing, and makes an overly long article even longer. I suggest leaving it as is. - Lentower 08:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but what about "free culture activist"? Free software, copyleft, patents—they all fit in that category. Is there really any notable area in which he could be considered an activist? (I honestly don't know.) Even then, wouldn't "activist, especially in the area of free culture" be a huge improvement?
As for the redundancy, if you consider that redundant, then encyclopedias are redundant, just like any other writing where readers are likely to read only so far (newspapers come to mind). Someone is just as likely to only read the first sentence as to read the entire summary before moving on to something else. It is not bad writing, just not narrative writing. It is a topic sentence, something that summarizes the useful information, which will be expanded upon later.
I still think it should be changed, though you're probably correct about "free software" not being appropriate. — supreme_geek_overlord 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
rms is an activist in other fields beside free culture and free software (though the article doesn't yet go into that). - Lentower 09:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, despite the fact that you haven't presented any examples. Since you likely know him personally, I'll trust you. Also, although I still think a nod to his focus on free software/culture would be appropriate in order to give some more context, I won't press it, given your apparent diametric opposition.

Nonetheless, one of the things I'm still wondering about is the use of the term "acclaimed." It really gives no mention of who he is acclaimed by. Though I suppose the "Recognition" section gives a hint at this, this seems like a questionable violation of NPOV, especially since he is still disliked by many. Comments? — supreme_geek_overlord 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The League in the intro

Should the League for Programming Freedom be placed in the leading summary? At least two editors have expressed skepticisms of this. Most people don't recognize his founding of the LfPF as notable. Is it? Should it be mention? I haven't seen it appear in a recent bio for Stallman. It is worth mentioning elsewhere in the article. --72.92.132.225 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And other editors prefer having the League there. My cut is that it add to the NPOV of the article to mention the League in the summary and the article, as it was only marginally successful. That NPOV is more important then notability in this case. If this article is ever going to be a Featured Article it needs more balance and NPOV-ness. - Lentower 19:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think success or failure has to do with POV. I'm still interested in hearing what others think of mentioning the League--like from someone who wasn't an original member, like Len (that's more of a POV issue). --71.161.213.11 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emacs in intro

Most hackers recognize the term "Emacs" as covering the original and the GNU version. For the sake of brevity, we probably only need to mention the encompassing name for the software package, Emacs, and not its synonym, GNU Emacs, in the intro. --71.161.223.179 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But most of the readers won't be hackers, especially of the intro summary. And just doing either the original Emacs OR GNU Emacs would make rms noteable enough for a WP article - they are each awesome pieces of hacking. - Lentower 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beard

Do we really need a section just on his beard, fer crying out loud? I mean, it's totally redundant with the pictures... --Gwern (contribs) 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was "Be Bold." and deleted it. - Lentower 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge of Grav-mass into this article

I'm not sure there's really enough for much more then a stub on this as its own article, but it is an interesting bit of trivia on Stallman. I think it would fit very well into his main page. Seraphimblade 05:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No to the merger. Grav-mass should stay it's own article. This is more then trivia about rms. It's about a holiday, and atheism. If it should be merged anywhere. it should be in an article about those or other issues. We are also trying to get the article size down right now. - Lentower 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Will remove the merge requests then. Is there really any notability of this in its own right (besides being Stallman's idea?) Seraphimblade 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Lemme put it this way. Newtonmas didn't survive AfD. There's no way in hell "Grav-mass" should. --Gwern (contribs) 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's sad that WPians are so serious, that articles like Newtonmas and Grav-mass are rejected. In the GNU Project, we were all dedicated to having fun along the way to producing a free computing software system. Including some humorous Unix man pages, and jokes in the software distributions that never got in the way of the software performing for the user. - Lentower 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
My point wasn't being serious - I voted to keep Newtonmas, as I recall - my point was that Newtonmas was by any objective measure vastly more notable, successful, and interesting than Grav-mass is, and so it was surely doomed. If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, than we know A is greater than C, and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need words on RMS' sense of humor

A person's sense of humor saids a lot about hir. A few paragraphs, perhaps added to Lifestyle would do it. Grav-mass (also see [8]) is just one example, and perhaps not among the best to include. I'm too close to rms, and worked with him for a dozen years, so it be hard for me to do this in an NPOV way. (Though there are many things one of us find funny that the other doesn't ;-) Lentower 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear 204.169.115.106:
Talk pages are different then article pages. On talk pages you do not change another editor's words. I'm aware of the usage you prefer. I prefer mine. best - Lentower 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This attempt was not quite what I had in mind:

Stallman also maintainsa 'childish' sense of humour , such as his 'jinnetic engineering' stories, and other notable nonesense.Stallmans humour could be described as one of a strong person, a strong character inside, as he is the one who while , even though it annoys others, ignores their anger and conentrates on himself and his feeling toward the joke, blocking out the 'distracions'.

by Improv on 2006-11-12T02:55:33

One approach is to separate humor preferences that he shares with other hackers, e.g. a love of puns, from humor that is more unique to him.

He also enjoys MIT style hacks.

With a good paragraph on rms' humor, the Lifestyle section could be renamed to Lifestyle and Personality. Lentower 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rethinking "hacker" vs "programmer"

Actually, Richard is not an aclaimed hacker. "Hacker" is his personality, and it is his style of project development, but the thing he is acclaimed for is producing EMACS, GCC, and GDB. He is not acclaimed for having enjoyed himself while doing so. So he is a hacker, and that should probably still be in the intro section, but I will change the acclaimed thing to "computer programmer". Gronky 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I sharpened "activist" to "software freedom activist" because, while he actively campaigns on many topics, what he is acclaimed for is is activism on software freedom. Gronky 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he is a "software freedom" activist. However, he's definitely a "hacker", and not a "software developer". I don't think the existence or lack of enjoyment has any meaning within the term hacker. He was a maintainer of the hacker's dictionary at one point, self identifies as a hacker in his bio. wasn't there an attempt to merge uberhacker with this article? --71.161.217.111 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Richard defines a hacker as someone who likes playful cleverness. He gives an example of using six chopsticks simulataneously (in response to all six being placed infront of him, when a waiter forgot to distribute them among all three people). So "hacker" is the attitude, and it can be applied to any discipline. Richard is a hacker, but his acclaim is for the output of his effort in the discipline of software development, not for the attitude or approach he took to that discipline. So the intro should say he is a hacker, but where it mentions what he is acclaimed for, it should say he is an acclaimed software developer. Gronky 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i'll leave the cultural anthropologoy debate ("hacker is an attitude") to the experts at hacker definition controversy. i'm glad you agree he's a hacker, fortunately the term connotes software programmer, as well. if you think we need both mention, i don't object to that. --71.161.214.168 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] include rethinking "software freedom activist" vs "activist"

Just as "clever playfulness" is a core attitude/value for Stallman, so is being an advocate and an activist for all of his beliefs. Not just for software freedom, not just for freedom, but for many causes. The article does him and the reader a disservice, when and if it only focuses on his acclaimed feats. Those are what are most obvious. But what is important are the core values, and how he applies them constantly and consistently - much more so then most people. That is at the core of the RMS story, and the article needs to be rewritten to reflect this - to have this as one of it's themes. He not only Think Globally, Act Locally, but acts both Locally and Globally.
Mentioning some of his smaller efforts like his support for publicly financed political campaigns and the League for Programming Freedom can be part of this. Looking at how other WP biographies, starting at the list of people RMS admires, could show ways to write this. Lentower 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

he's an advocate of other things, but surely not an activist in the same concrete ways he is inserted himself in the struggle for software freedom. --71.161.214.168 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a question of quantity, not quality. RMS has done many of the things for other causes, that he has done for software freedom. Including speaking, organizing rallies, fundraising, etc. Just less. Even he has only so much time and energy.
So, YES in the same concrete ways.
btw, "inserted" underestimates his role in the free software movement. He created it in it's current form, and took whatever was there before him, to not only the next level, but many beyond. Lentower 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

when such activity passes the notability test and is inserted in the body of the article, then it would deserve such a qualification in the intro. --71.169.130.238 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough spin, please

Toppler has made recently made several edits introducing original research, weasel words and outright misquoting, all of which have been rewritten or reworded by various editors. The latest in the series introduces this (all new text, emphasis mine, links adapted from <ref> format):

Not all outside observers regard Stallman with such uncritical adulation as does the above hagiography. Interviewers have described him as "crotchety," speaking with the "peeved falsetto of a frustrated adolescent."[9] One brave voice of dissent is Daniel Lyons, a staff writer for Forbes magazine, who criticizes Stallman for his repulsive personality and "downright bizarre" behavior.[10] Even those who idolize Stallman will admit, in the occasional unguarded moment, that his personal hygiene is not up to the standards of wider society. Eben Moglen, for instance, notes that Stallman has a habit of picking out knots from his hair and tossing them in the soup he is eating.[11]
In the opinion of at least one interviewer, Stallman leads a lonely life: "I formed the impression that he had held me back not because he wanted to rant about Raymond, but simply because he didn’t want to have to sit on his own until the film crew arrived."[12]

Apart from the sections in bold (which are too conspicuous to even qualify for being called weasel words), the interview from the first link is being selectively quoted, taken out of context, and used to generalize where no generalization was present - the source reads:

Today he is especially crotchety. As he talks his voice oscillates between a pleasant Jack-Nicholson-like baritone and the peeved falsetto of a frustrated adolescent; the latter occurring whenever he concludes that his interlocutor is being obtuse, or asking stupid questions.

Even the Lyons piece (which comes off as serious as any blatant mud-throwing piece can) is being misquoted - nowhere in the article does the author say Stallman has a repulsive personality.

The Moglen remark, which incidentally is a quote of a quote, is not "noting that Stallman has a habit of"... please read the sources properly before quoting them:

And, of course, Richard is plucking the knots from his hair and dropping them in the soup and behaving in his usual way. Anybody listening in on our conversation would have thought we were crazy, but I knew: I knew the revolution's right here at this table. This is what's making it happen. And this man is the person making it happen.

As for "personal hygiene not up to the standards of society", where exactly does that come from? No original research, please. Reading WP:LIVING would be nice too. Not to mention WP:NPOV. And WP:NOT.

Taking out the spin and misquoting, what's left is hardly notable; except perhaps for the Moglen remark, and even then it's doubtful to say the least. Are we going to include in Jonathan Schwartz some guy's remark about how he farted once or whatever? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soap box, nor an opinion column, nor a place to push against someone you dislike for one reason or another. I'm reverting these changes. Capi 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see it now: Category:Once farted and Category:Used a public toilet without washing his hands afterward - when these links turn blue, it's game over for Wikipedia. :-) Gronky 11:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Lifestyle" section has been extemely volatile, largely because it is in the poorest shape of the entire article, but also because it has food for the trolls. One problem is the Forbes article. Daniel Lyons is too contentious and questionable of a source to be included in my opinion. Here are two notes on him, one is historical, the other is a response to the Stallman article. They sound like fair treatments of Lyon's work (well, barring the "loser" title, or maybe not):

We could include the above links in this article, or even a response from RMS or his followers, but one doesn't exist! RMS et al don't even think it was notable, and I don't think it was notable either. There was no debate between parties. It's just a New York Post-style online piece, that was non-issue no sooner after it was printed. There's a lot of people who bought it, and are using it as fodder to spam this article, but that's what media can do to people.

I'm more interested in taking this moment to discuss if the "Lifestyle" section is notable at all to be included, and get back to the task of making this article a featured article. --71.161.215.94 15:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that this entire article is full of spin? With the exception of, count 'em, two sentences, it reads like RMS himself authored the piece specifically to portray himself in the best possible light. Besides being a laugh riot, it's also a little disappointing in that it shows how vulnerable Wikipedia is to the efforts of a horde of fanboys determined to stamp out anything less than flattering about their idol. As it stands currently, the article is a joke. Toppler 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
(Comment: I love how anyone trying to bring balance and perspective to this article is immediately labeled a "troll." Ahh, the good ol' Wikipedia hive mind. And to think I once had respect for this place... Toppler 16:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

One more thing: I'll note that the "Lifestyle" section is based entirely on self-assessments of Richard Stallman by Richard Stallman. But for that one concluding paragraph that Stallman fans keep neutering, there's not a single word in there that isn't Stallman's-world-according-to-Stallman. This state of affairs is, frankly, embarrassing to the concept of a reference work, and if you people have your way and kill the outside perspective, you're only digging the hole that much deeper. Toppler 16:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let us, for the sake of "trying to bring balance" to the article, distort quotes (or hell, why not just make them up) and insert claims taken out of our hat such as "Even those who idolize Stallman will admit, in the occasional unguarded moment, that his personal hygiene is not up to the standards of wider society." No need to bother with WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR or WP:LIVING, for that matter. Tell us honestly, were this the article on Bill Gates, would you be making the same complaints? Would you be inserting sentences like "Many agree he has an annoyingly high-pitched voice" or "Someone once saw him take boogeys out of his nose"? Would you be citing some pseudo-article full of nothing but ad hominem attacks, to write Many say Gates is an obnoxious powermonger or whatever? Would you try to pass that off as belonging in an encyclopedia, or would you be part of the ones removing it? Really, just reading the extracts above in bold from the text you introduced is more than enough to disprove any claim of "trying to bring balance". Capi 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can take Toppler's remarks as a vote for removing the "Lifestyle" section. What do others think? --71.169.132.254 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a section on his personal life is both logical and warranted. It's seen on most biographical articles, including for example the one I linked to above: Bill Gates#Personal life. Interestingly enough, however, there are no ad hominem attacks on that section, nor remarks on whether his armpits smell or not; indeed Toppler was right, what kind of an article is that... Capi 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be all for such balance on the Bill Gates article, much as that might surprise you. I don't care about him either way, much like I don't care about Stallman either way (that's one problem with you people--you seem too personally invested with the subject of this article). If you people were editing George W. Bush, I bet it'd be nothing but ass-kissing. You'd remove any trace of outside perspective on his foibles and habits, no matter how relevant they are to a fuller understanding of the man, am I right?
I give up on this article. It's clear you're intent on pretending that nobody's interested in the guy's personal life, and that you will not tolerate the inclusion of any information that might portray him in a negative light. Have fun. Toppler 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Comment retracted. Apologies. Toppler 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
(BTW, please don't misinterpret my comments above to mean I'm a Bush fan or anything silly like that. Just trying to illustrate the absurdity of your arguments with an example.) Toppler 08:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning that some people consider RMS' personal hygeine to be poor, if it has citation(s) that say that, and is written in both an accurate, polite, and NPOV way - the citation may use unpolite language, but that's in the nature of citations and encyclcopedias. Ditto for presentation of any attribute that some of the editors of this article consider negative. In fact to get Featured Article, we need much more balance.

Well said, Lentower; agree completely. Capi 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So Topper, go for it, but expect heavy editing, if you do not get the tone right. And the rest of you, go to the citations and change the article's language to reflect the facts presented in the citation. Lentower 12:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Lentower. Maybe I should put my proposed edits here for vetting before inserting them into the article? I really do respect Stallman's efforts towards what he considers a better world, but I find it sickening how the article seems to gravitate towards uncritical adulation, with unflattering information neutered and gradually removed, no matter how well-sourced and relevant. His lifestyle is relevant to a section on "Lifestyle," and it's dishonest to base it entirely on the man's own opinions of himself. I find the best source of perspective on people is usually other people. Toppler 15:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that his Lifestyle is relevant, and contrary to the impression I may have left on you, I do not want to remove negative information for the sake of removing it. What I want is for the article to be portrayed in a neutral tone, and for information to be given its due weight. We need to be external observers and describe things from a neutral point of view (essentially describe the events, rather than participate in them). Just as a paragraph quoting something positive should not agree or disagree with that which is quoted, neither should a paragraph quoting something negative. The alterations you had included earlier read, due to their tone, as being heavily "charged", rather than neutral. The end result for someone reading the article was several paragraphs describing stuff about the subject (that he likes this or that, whatever) then a couple of paragraphs being openly negative towards him. Our text should not, in itself, be positive nor negative; it should not qualify his critics as being brave or coward, right or wrong; it should just say that others criticise him, and accurately state what they say (as long as the criticisms are notable and from verifiable sources). I say criticisms should be notable in that they should be notable to the subject; Bush is known for his gaffes, for better or worst. Gates is known for being a very aggressive businessman, for better or worst. One quote of a quote saying Stallman once threw a strand of hair to his soup does not seem notable to me, in his case, any more than a quote of a quote saying Jonathan Schwartz once picked his nose; this is why I removed that particular "criticism" (also, it could even be argued whether the original text was in figurative form). It was the tone in your alterations and summaries that led me (and, I suspect, others) to believe you were trying to push POV against the subject, rather than striving for balance. I understand you may not have meant for this, as you have now clarified, and I apologize if I misinterpreted you. Now, let's try to work together and turn this into yet another featured article :) Capi 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm focusing on the "Lifestyle" section now (call me weird, I think it's the most interesting bit) and, well, it reads like it was cobbled together from a million different pieces, over time—which I guess it was. Let me try my hand at a rewrite. I'll post here before changing anything on the article itself, but it could take a couple days. Toppler 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you guys think it's acceptable to include summary statements like: "By all indications, Stallman devotes his energies to the pursuit of software freedom, caring little for material wealth"? My feeling is that such summarization, followed by detailed explanations with sources, is helpful to the casual reader who may know little about him and who wishes to become acquainted with him as quickly and readily as possible—but I fear inviting claims of original research. I suppose it's okay as long as we all agree on it here, though, right? Toppler 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree to that statement; the main text already indicates that he is heavily devoted to his activism goals, and that he does not want money to dictate what he can do. I would see it as a summarization, instead of original research (as long as what the summary says is already said elsewhere in the text, which I believe it is, didn't read the whole thing right now). Capi 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with taking "uncritical adulation", and moving it to a more balanced NPOV. Summary statements are also great for the reader, if they summarize cited statements in the article. But on both points, I'm just summarizing what Capi said. Lentower 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revisions

Far from rough draft, I just wanted to belch this out for everyone to hammer away on. Toppler 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[moved to article per suggestion of Lentower—thanks]

[edit] Comments on Proposed revisions

My comments:

  • You should just Be Bold and put this in the article.
  • I just edited the above as I would edit the article.
  • Don't change the way the Notes and References section is in the article.
  • No white space or line ends before a <ref>
  • NEVER put a {{cn}} or a {{fact}} inside a <ref>...</ref>. It is much more obvious that work is needed, if these are in the main text of the article.
  • I'm out of time to comment further. Lentower 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanted feedback before insertion into the article, it would have been better to put the section(s) draft in your sandbox, or a file in your User space, then trying to embed it here in the Talk page. Either is easy enough to link to. Lentower 23:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Might", "concern" and "peculiarities"

Some worry that these “unusual behaviors” might impair the adoption of free and open source software. In one Forbes magazine article, columnist Daniel Lyons expressed concern that Stallman’s peculiarities would harm GNU/Linux’s reputation by association.

There's a lot of implication going on between sources, which don't seem to be justified by their references. I couldn't find in the article that mentions "unusual behaviors" the argument that they "might impair the adoption of free and open source software". Where is the reference for the Daniel Lyons's article? I don't know what "concern" Daniel Lyons would have for GNU/Linux's reputation, anyway. Lyons has about about as much concern for GNU/Linux as George W. Bush has for Islam. --71.161.221.247 04:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Where, exactly, did the Criticism section go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.92.64.247 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Looking back at article history for a few weeks it hasn't had a criticism section. Specific criticisms of RMS are inside other sections where they are more relevant. Ttiotsw 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "professor" and "Phd"

Should he be called "Professor Richard Stallman Ph.d" on account of his honarary professorship and honorary degrees? I had this conversation with someone once and they said that honarary recipients of these awards don't use the titles in their names. Anyone know? Gronky 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The honorary degree article also says that the titles are usually not used and using them is considered improper in a lot of countries. This and that Richard himself doesn't used these titles (when someone even calls him "sir" he asks them not to). Gronky 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology -- reasons

It is very clear why Stallman prefers the term "GNU/Linux" to "Linux". What is not clear is why he prefers the term "free software" to "open-source software", and the article doesn't explain it. Perhaps someone who knows can clarify that (in the "Terminology" section of the article)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.100.133 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Good spot. I don't know how we missed that. The reason is that the purpose of the software is freedom, so naming this software in a way that doesn't convey this will make it hard for the reader/listener to ever know that issues of freedom exist that maybe they should value and defend. I've tried to say this in the article, but the wording could be better.
I also removed a paragraph about why some people invented the term "open source" - their motivations for doing that do not explain Stallman's motivations for using the term "free software", plus their motivations are (better) documented in other places on wikipedia. Gronky 00:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood and schooling

If the interview that Michael Gross apparently did in 1999 is a reliable source then this article is ignoring some very interesting information about this man (who I don't know and hold no strong opinions on). Another internet source says Stallman believes he is autistic, and in the Gross piece the interviewee gives such a typical description of an autistic childhood (and adulthood) that it's obvious what it all adds up to. Has Stallman ever been given an autism diagnosis? Is he self-diagnosed? Did he attend a private school for special needs or autistic kids for 5 years with the "insane or stupid"? Did Stallman really say this "In fact, if I hadn't been smart, I probably would have been thrown in the garbage, basically. But because I was obviously smart, they couldn't just say, "This is a manufacturing failure; get rid of it."? Courageous words! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Parents and religious affiliation

I have deleted a reference to his parents and to their religious affiliation. Putting his parents religious heritage in the first sentence of a biography of a programmer whose work isn't related to his parent's identity or faith clutters up the basic story with less relevant details. If his self-description as an atheist of Jewish heritage merits inclusion, it should probably be included in a section on his overall philosophy. --Cshirky 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the early biography is the perfect place for putting his parents and his early religious beliefs, seeing as they, y'know, are pretty important to his being born and his early development. What section is more fit for putting them in than the early portion of his biography? --Gwern (contribs) 17:03 21 February 2007 (GMT)
  • Yeah, Gwern is quite right! Don't forget, either, a brief explanation of the laws of genetics (which played an undoubtedly major role in Stallman being born like he is, and not some other way), or mating habits of young human beings (without which his parents would have never actually come to give birth to him), or medicine and pediatrics (which no doubt shaped the events surrounding his birth), and... why not? if the first paragraph has some space left, add a short overview of national and international politics at the moment of his birth. Gwern, your question of "where else to put them" is a loaded question, because it implies it has to be put somewhere. Believe it or not, sometimes religious affiliation of parents can be irrelevant for a biography. Moreover, Cshirky already answered that question: he proposes to mention it in a section about his philosophy. — Isilanes 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You think the names of his parents should be put in the philosophy section? I suspect you are committing the fallacy of misinterpretation... --Gwern (contribs) 23:32 22 February 2007 (GMT)
  • I couldn't find this "fallacy of misinterpretation", but maybe you are accusing me of using a strawman argument. This is, namely, the fallacy you use when implying I mean to move the mention to Stallman's parents' names to the philosophy section, when what I mean is that any mention to his or his parents' religious beliefs should be moved there, if included at all. — Isilanes 09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes; when someone obnoxiously starts to throw around fallacies, I like to make up names so they might understand how annoying it is. I still don't see how mention of how his parents raised him (which is to say, in what religion) is not relevant for the biography section and should be lumped in with his current beliefs; one is historical data on his youth, and the other is more current and general. --Gwern (contribs) 18:19 23 February 2007 (GMT)
  • First, I didn't "throw around fallacies", but rather accusations of using fallacies, which you didn't disprove. Second, I didn't make the accusations to annoy you (which I'd rather not to, believe me), but to point out the invalidity of your arguments. Third, I didn't make up the names or definitions of the fallacies I mention... I even give wikilinks so anyone can see if they apply to your speech. Don't worry, if they do not apply, people will see it, and I will be considered the dumbass I probably am. About the actual subject of the discussion, I think I can't contribute much more than my (already stated) opinion. However, if people agree with Gwern, I'll consider it perfectly well, too. — Isilanes 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone launched WikiProject Free Software

WikiProject Free Software has been set up. It has many people listing themselves as participants, but it seems to still need some leadership and some action to develop the project and to build momentum. Some people from here might be able to help. Suggestions can be found (and made) on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Free_Software. Gronky 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unbalanced

This must be one of the least balanced articles on wikipedia.

Not even a trace of negative, other views of how things can be ? Come on, let's be open to balancing and including the negative just as well as the positive.


His (GNU) isn't the only religion to follow ... 213.118.142.27 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Be bold - find the reliable sources that have criticism of Stallman and add them in. Ttiotsw 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His "tone deaf" personality

His best-known original composition, the Free Software Song, has attracted praise from his admirers as well as derision from those who consider it emblematic of what they consider to be his inflexible, tone-deaf personality.

Can someone rephrase this? What is a "tone-deaf personality"? I guess it's meaningless and the author was just strainging to make a music pun. Great for a blog entry. Useless for an encyclopedia. How is a song emblematic of an inflexible personality? Gronky 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How is a song emblematic of RMS's personality? It's not! I propose that we remove that section. Sounds petty, coming from an encyclopedia with as much calibur and impact as Wikipedia. Dylan Knight Rogers 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology section needs fixing: proposal

The terminology section is growing and growing and it's just a reprint of the "Words to avoid" webpage. IMO, it would be better to go back to listing the main three terms that Richard dwells on (free software, GNU/Linux, intellectual property), and then a discussion of the commonalities between all the terms that he dislikes - why those terms? What're the trends? The goals? And what has made him so resolute about this issue? Comments sought. Gronky 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His influence on OpenOffice's use of Java

It's worth mentioning his work on raising awareness and getting a solution for OpenOffice's use of features only available in Sun's non-free Java. Some info and refs are here: OpenOffice.org#Java_controversy. And GNOME (and Harmony) is another piece of software activism. Maybe Gnash too. Gronky 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichard_Stallman_6dd7.html"