Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Richard Stallman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]) 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)

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)

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)

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."^[2] 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.^[3] 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.^[4]

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."^[5]

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):

Is Daniel Lyons a loser? from The Jem Report.
Stallman, GPLv3 Attack by Forbes is Ridiculous from Linux Tech Daily

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)

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]

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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).