Jump to content

Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

Quotes on significant social issues (RMS still holds)

I added the following to "Personal Life," and it was deleted twice:

Stallman believes prostitution, adultery, necrophelia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, incest, and pedophilia should all be legal, stating "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children," and "There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children." (See original diff [1]).

On the second submission, I cited that I have personally contacted him in email (July 2012) asking if these quotes were accurate, to which he replied yes. I asked him if they were taken out of context, and he replied no. I asked him if there were any additional explanations he'd like to give, and he said no. And the latest references are in his January 2013 archives on stallman.org. [2]

These are obviously stunning and shocking quotes, but they are also things people researching RMS should know about with regards to his person and personal views -- specifically the necrophelia, child pornography, and pedophilia portions, which are views generally not accepted by societies. I would like these references added back in to the article. 68.57.226.96 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. --AVRS (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Stallman's own website, stallman.org, contains these quotes. His publication. 68.57.226.96 (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"I cited that I have personally contacted him in email (July 2012)" - Obviously some due diligence has been done here, which would be fine if original research was allowed. However, because there is no way other readers or editors of Wikipedia can verify the content of your email conversation, it can not be used as an sources on Wikipedia. As it stand, half of the suggested edit is then conjectural interpretation of the quotes, which is explicitly not allow on articles about living people. What is left then is the quotes by themselves, and here I look at WP:WELLKNOWN. In this case, the quote is not very noteworthy, nor that relevant, and only has documentation from a self-published blog post. As such, I suggest follow the policy advice and leave it out until a time if and when reliable third-party sources pick it up. It is important than the article do not become scandal mongering, so letting reliable third-party sources decide if such quote is noteworthy is good method to maintain a high quality article. Is there a reason why an exception should be made in this case? Belorn (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As I read it, scandal mongering does not apply as these quotes are from his personal website, and not of a grapevine or rumor. And as for being cited in publications, there are many people who bring these comments up in comments section on Stallman-related articles and threads (do a google search for the quote and you'll find many). But at the article level, there is a publishing bias or reluctance to include this information for the same reasons being observed here -- that it's of such sensitivity as to deserve special consideration before conveying, that it could easily be coupled to something like scandal mongering (because it's of that scope). But this position by publishers and the Talk community here at Wikipedia, I think, only lends credence to the notion that it SHOULD be published and people should be made known about it because it is that shocking (that it actually rattles people). People need to know the highlights of the man's views before they side with him only on the free software advocacy position, for example, and to be able to do so here without going through hours of sifting through everything personal he's written over his life.
This wikipedia article is a snapshot summary of important facets of who Stallman is, and this most definitely ranks as one of them. He believes, and affirms when questioned about it, that people should be allowed to have sex with the dead, or with children, and that it doesn't harm them or anyone else in doing so.
I originally cited my email verification because I too found it shocking and wanted to personally validate that he was being quoted inaccurately and that he still held these beliefs (because I thought the same thing here -- rumor, smearing, lies, etc). But it's not that. Those really are his beliefs.
In the personal life section today we have such societal view positions as his take on God, Christmas, influential role models, political influences, beliefs on not being tracked by the government via cell phones, use of keycard security, paper ballot boxes, musical art tastes, and languages spoken. We learn a lot about the man ... but we do not learn that he also believes it should be legal for men and women to have sex with the dead, or with children, and that these things are not harmful.
The items being discussed in this Talk section are poignant positions of note, especially when compared to societal norms which do not generally align with his beliefs. And Stallman is a type of public figure, a man of interest to many disciplines due to his free software advocacy, even being sought after for public speaking engagements world-wide. And it's worth noting that in each of those engagements he speaks at length about how the Linux operating system should be called "GNU/Linux". Why? He explains that if it were simply called "Linux" then there's a possibility some people would come away with the belief the product they use ties back to Linus Torvalds, and therefore to his beliefs and philosophies as the root creator of the entire system. And this is something Stallman addresses at length in every speech on free software, and in the Q&A sections at the end. He cites the dangers of not having the full picture here because the beliefs held by Torvalds, and the focus and direction of the Linux kernel project in general, are in stark contrast to the beliefs held by GNU and the free software movement under copyleft protection. Note: This distinction is highlighted in the movie Revolution OS [3] with sections beginning around 30:00 in, and in his speech around 72:00 in when he received the Linus Torvalds Award for the Free Software Foundation.
Stallman's personal concerns on this issue are that GNU's free software efforts will be equated to Linux and its affiliation with open source instead of free software, and he goes out of his way to clarify that in his speeches.
Bringing that position forward, that the root philosophy and image of something really does bear purposeful distinction so as to highlight differences, the same holds true here for the man himself because he has a particular public persona, an outward face of free software advocacy, and the other beliefs the public sees in his speeches which are highly desirable. But they're also coupled to this other, non-trivial component of his belief system, a component that is of such a kind most people would likely find it off-putting enough to warrant never having anything to do with him or his endeavors again because of it alone.
In short, it's of such an impact, of such scope and size that the public's interest demands they be made aware of it in this article as a tier one piece of information. The things easily seen outwardly in his public face and speeches are coupled to this other facet of his beliefs that would likely change people's position regarding him were they known.
People need to be made aware of who it is they're following. And a summary article about Stallman should contain this information as an aspect of his belief system, a front page component, something a person would read in the first two minutes of searching after him, because it is at least on par with his views on God and political affiliation (and that doesn't yet include the aspects of bestiality, incest, or child pornography -- all of which he supports as well). 68.57.226.96 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to go with reliable sources, and what they are saying. I can appreciate having strong views on the matter, many do, but we can't base edits on personal views. Publishing original research, and making people aware is not in the mission of Wikipedia. Start a blog, post on forums, discuss on social media, but here is not the place for such activities.
Depending on how the quotes are interpreted, some people might feel shocked. I don't interpret them in that way, but thats my personal view. The quotes do not imply any legislation change, but rather is a traditional academic reaction. There have been several well funded research studies that sought a larger understand about the harm of sexual abuse to children, and what/whatnot is primary causes for harm. The few extracts from such reports that I have read also commonly discuss the question about consent, which RMS statement is similar to. However, that is my interpretation of the quotes. To complicate matter more, the definition of pedophilia is distinct different in US (RMS is a US citizen), and the medical definition of pedophilia. As such, I do not even know if RMS is talking about some who is 18 years old that dates some who is 17, or if he is using the medical definition where it must be a person of 16 years or older who has sex with someone under 11 years old. As such, we could likely keep discussing this for a very long time and argue what kind of interpretation is the right one, but Wikipedia forbids such discussions on talk pages. It is simply not allowed. If talk pages become battlegrounds for discussing the subject matter, it would damage the goals that Wikipedia try to achieve. As such, it suggest that editors who want to write about their personal opinion do so in blogs, forums and social media. Belorn (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing comments on that subject under articles about RMS, they are probably all made by trolls. Comments do not make it notable. His personal blog contains many more and much stronger comments on environment, GMO and the possibility of global warming, and those are not mentioned in the article (please don't add it). Comparison of that with his beliefs on God or free software is your personal biased synthesis (different people have various beliefs, and not necessarily consistent or strongly interconnected in the same way). --AVRS (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(reply to original comment) That's some serious cherry picking there. Would you care to summarise his other opinions or are you only interested in publishing a terse summary about sex? Why?
There's also the issue of notability. We could mention that he has ten toes, but it's not something he's famous for. He's also not know for his stance on bestiality, so I don't see the reason for putting it in an encyclopaedia article about him. He doesn't campaign for any of those things, and he doesn't even claim to do, have done, or even be interested in trying any of them (unless you call it bestiality when a Parrot rubbed its genitals on him). Being on a web page doesn't make things notable.
If every comment I ever made in the pub was on a web page, motivated people could make awful summaries. Gronky (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI We had an IP address (174.96.174.11 (talk · contribs)) try to re-insert the same Original research lines about Stallman's views on the social issues in addition to his eating a bit of toe jam while in public. I've reverted them up to the 3RR limit and directed them to follow BRD and come here to present their case for why it should be included. Pending a substantial case being made I claim the BLP exemption to the WP:EW rules which specifically authorizes breaking the 3RR in cases where the content is not appropriately sourced and defamatory to the subject. Hasteur (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the above conclusion. Why is it notable to say that RMS supports Bernie Sanders, admires Winston Churchill, doesn't support Israel, likes folk music and reads science fiction - all relatively common characteristics - yet not okay to say that he supports child sex and child pornography? If I don't get a reasonable response in 7 days, I'm re-adding the material. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Admiring Winston Churchill isn't a topic specifically covered by our WP:BLP policy (I am not at this time expressing an opinion on whether the material should be included or excluded, just that if it is it must follow BLP policy). Technical note: if the material is included the quote should be in full, not shortened, and the citation should be to where he first wrote it, which is at [ https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I would normally see your point, but Stallman doesn't seem to think that this is private or negative information. If he removes the comments from his website, I'd be the first to say that they should be removed from the article. Would you be able to write to him, explain that we're thinking of adding the comments to the article and ask if he objects? Thanks. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq just reverted the material and requested on my talk page that if I wish to add it, I should raise the issue at WP:BLPN. I have done so. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Is the "CONS" link correct on this page? Here is the text:

"As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects such as TECO, Emacs for ITS, and the Lisp machine operating system (the CONS of 1974–1976 and the CADR of 1977–1979—this latter unit was commercialized by Symbolics and LMI starting around 1980).[13]"

The target of that CONS link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONS, which does not seem relevant to this page.

2. And that reference [13] looks odd too - what does this mention of CONS and CADR (two Lisp functions, though perhaps something else was meant in this context?) have to do with a book about Wikipedia?

[13] Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution. New York City: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6. OCLC 232977686.

Incorrect links? "CONS" and reference [13]

148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Is the "CONS" link correct on this page? Here is the text:

"As a hacker in MIT's AI laboratory, Stallman worked on software projects such as TECO, Emacs for ITS, and the Lisp machine operating system (the CONS of 1974–1976 and the CADR of 1977–1979—this latter unit was commercialized by Symbolics and LMI starting around 1980).[13]"

The target of that CONS link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONS, which does not seem relevant to this page.

2. And that reference [13] looks odd too - what does this mention of CONS and CADR (two Lisp functions, though perhaps something else was meant in this context?) have to do with a book about Wikipedia?

[13] Lih, Andrew (2009). The Wikipedia Revolution. New York City: Hyperion. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6. OCLC 232977686.

And I see that there are multiple uses of reference [13] on this page, and they too seem suspect (irrelevant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinions on abortion and Down's Syndrome

Recently, on his own blog, Stallman recently came out as pro-abortion of fetuses which have been diagnosed as having Down's Syndrome. I think this is important enough to note in this article, but I don't know where to put this. Perhaps a new "Political Opinions" section or something of the like? — Supuhstar * — 01:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Has his opinion on abortion received coverage by reliable sources? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem would be that editors would be deciding which internet snippets to pick and compile into a "political opinions" section (WP:OR). Stallman has had a lot of ideas, and many people might disagree with some of them. Editors should not pick some ideas and work them up into presenting a view about the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Antinatalist?

This page is in the Category:Anti-natalists. Is there a source confirming that? If not, please remove. 2603:3020:190B:F600:A00:27FF:FE61:B8D (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the category. In his Why it is important not to have children, he argues against it for social-economic & environmentalist reasons. He does not see procreation as an ill in-it-self ("I don't wish that nobody had any children"). 2603:3020:190B:F600:A00:27FF:FE61:B8D (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Stallman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The article currently notes that:

This shift in the legal characteristics of software can be regarded as a consequence triggered by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 ...

But the notion of copyrighting software — are more precisely, computer programs — did not occur until a 1980 amendment introduced the concept. I think a correction is needed but not before the necessary background research can confirm this view. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I removed two categories: "Filkers" and "Science fiction fans" because they are not supported by the article or reliable secondary sources, which is required by WP:CATV. Also, it has already been mentioned that rms goes by the lowercase initialism "rms" not by upper-case. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 and 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26: Ok, the first one I'm fine with (trout Self-trout for that revert, apologies), but neither you or the previous IP have provided evidence that "RMS" is lowercase. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I kinda wish we could claim him; but there's nothing in the article to indicate that he was ever a filker or otherwise a member of the fannish community. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He was a Guest of Honor at Finncon in 2001, but he was described as "Hacker, computer networks expert". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He did write at least one filk song. Eman235/talk 01:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It's kind of borderline to characterize it as filk, although it's certainly in the filk spirit. He only seems to sing it at hacker cons and the like. There are several computer-related songs which you will hear at filksings, especially ones haunted by older filkers; but they are not necessarily true filk, any more than the Tom Lehrer, Weird Al or Alan Sherman songs that will also make an appearance. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
How about every single place his email address is listed? UNIX usernames have been lowercase since it was invented in the 70s. When rms had his account at gnu.ai.mit.edu, everyone logged in as "rms" and used the password "rms". If we'd logged in as "RMS" with password "RMS" it would've failed, because both of those things are case-sensitive. I just found a dozen email archives listing Stallman's many email addresses all beginning with "rms@". Yes, sometimes he is colloquially called "RMS" so it's not entirely consistent, but I must say that as far as him calling himself a pseudonym, he's always used "rms" when he talks to the computer - and given his lack of social graces, it is far more important what he tells a computer than what he tells a human being. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding filking: I know for a fact that he is a filker; but per WP:CATV we need WP:RS and support in the article text before we can use the categories. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I had not known that. What SF cons does he attend? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
He's got a whole page of his own filks on his website at http://www.stallman.org/doggerel.html; he has had a filk published in Xenofilkia; so I've added him back to the category. He is apparently a regular at Arisia. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I put "Filkers" and "Science Fiction Fans" back in his categories: regular attendee at Arisia (and has participated in panels) and has had a song published in Xenofilkia.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason they were removed is because of the lack of sources and no support in the article. You have not resolved either of those issues. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hokay, I've added WP:SPS to support the categories... now, who would like to talk about WP:DEFINING and WP:TRIVIA? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps @Contaldo80: and @Johnuniq: should like to comment to justify why they do not think that random excerpts from rms' bio and faq are not miscellaneous trivia. I am certainly not referring to his atheism in particular. But it seems to me that editors are so hell-bent to retain categories on filking and scifi that we need to justify them per WP:CATV and it just turns into bloat. Why are we singling out scifi, instead of presenting a comprehensive picture of his tastes: "Genres I enjoy include fiction, science fiction, mystery, romance occasionally, history, anthropology, science, mathematics, and occasionally other things." If we're going to profile rms, let's do it right, instead of whatever 'we' feel is interesting. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's see your alternative but adding a pointy tag is not going to fly. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is his love of science fiction WP:DEFINING? Is there something else we can say, and expand on it, other than just jamming that fact into the trivia list and re-adding the category? Why is his love of scifi more defining than his love of mathematics? And why shouldn't he also be in Category:Mathematicians? What about his love of medieval polyphony? Why does this not rise to the threshold of inclusion? 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm pretty much convinced by previous comments about WP:DEFINING, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:SPS. I won't remove the categories myself, but I withdraw my objection to their removal.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stallman/Archive_14&oldid=919146749"