Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 15

rms in lower-case
It can be easily verified that Richard Stallman goes by the lower-case initials of rms. Yes, lower-case. Please stop reverting the edits. 80.236.48.144 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Commenting here since it's relevant again due to a similar IP: there is no evidence that this is the case. I tried looking everywhere, including his personal website - it appears most likely that it is capitalized from what I have found. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PLEASE DO NOT CALL MY EDITS VANDALISM AND REVERT ALL THREE OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTRUCTIVE. THANK YOU! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All caps isn't really helping your case here. Besides, vandalism is a broad term here - it's a catchall for edits that appear to be unconstructive. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * YOU APPEAR TO PREFER ALL-CAPS IN SPITE OF WHAT STALLMAN HAS ALWAYS USED, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD APPEAL TO YOU. USING ROLLBACK AND THE MINOR FLAG TO REVERT NON-VANDALISM IS DISRUPTIVE AND PROHIBITED, IT MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF YOUR ROLLBACK AND TWITTER RIGHTS. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Intemperate responses will not do a great deal to improve your reputation here.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Before there was the Internet, there was ARPAnet, and MIT had four systems connected. All four ran ITS, MIT's "Incompatible Time Sharing" system. Like most time-sharing systems of the 60s and 70s, ITS used all caps. Stallman's login there was "RMS". Those who use the all-caps version are probably hearkening back to those days. But this is the 2010s, and almost all computer systems use MixeD cASe, so "rms" should be fine.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where Kirbanzo has been looking, but I've known rms for decades, and I've never seen his ID written RMS. I see that he occasionally uses it on his web site, but that's very much the exception. The reference in the article is to lower-case rms. I've changed the article to refer to both, with a reference that rms is also his email ID (rms@gnu.org). Please don't change back without discussion. Groogle (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Change profile picture on top to a more "neutral" one
I propose to change the profile picture on top of this page to a more "neutral" one. The current picture shows Richard Stallman in non-usual, kind of traditional clothes. I think this does not represent this person in a good way. Because Richard Stallman is such a polemical figure, the use of non-usual pictures just helps to feed critics and clichés at least for one of the two opposite views towards him. However, in general it should be avoided in an encyclopedia to fuel polemic. That is why on top of an article about Richard Stallman there should be a usual picture by him, a picture that allows a more neutral reception. There are plenty of such pictures available to use in Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman (Unfortunately, the same picture is used on top of the following wikipedias and should be changed accordingly: DE, EN, FR, PA) Dreirik (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which one of the Wikimedia Commons do you suggest we use instead? I think argument that was used for the current one was the date, which of course is now out-of-date. If one looks for attributes like neutrality and representing picture, I think most of the neutral/with red shirt should be usable. Belorn (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest this one from 2015: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_at_CommonsFest_Athens_2015_2.JPG It matches a lot of important criteria for an encyclopedia: very well illuminated, typical activity (giving talk), typical dress (red shirt) and it is more recent as the current one. Dreirik (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest finding a recent one from the LibrePlanet mediagoblin site. for example is a decent photo, from 2018, and licensed CC-BY-SA.  Eman  235 / talk  01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ per this edit. 81.225.31.236 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Political views
"When asked about his influences, he replied that he admires Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich, and commented as well: "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did."[47] Stallman is a Green Party supporter,[1] and a supporter of the National Initiative proposal.[103] He has also publicly endorsed Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign bid.[104]

Politically, Stallman has expressed that he is not an anarchist.[105]"

This anarchist part is pointless, the paragraph before details his political views. That sentence is the equivalent of saying someone is not a republican when the paragraph before says someone is a democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 January 2016

Linux for the GNU Project
This section is written from a perspective partisan against Stallman. Is it possible to express his concerns in a way that reflects his feelings and not the impressions of his detractors? Here is the primary reference to the topic: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html Quiliro (talk) 21:41, 2018 october 28 (UTC)

Defending Epstein
Ya'll are wild for keeping this out of the article to make sure it reads like a hagiography.

I'm adding a section about his current spree of defending Epstein, who gave money to MIT. It's public record, concerns notable events, and cited by outside media sources. It's gonna be sloppy so if you want to edit it for style be my guest; if it gets removed, this article will be lying by omission about the most prominent piece of public advocacy Stallman has done in years, which is, in actual fact, defending Jeffrey Epstein. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So after a brief edit war where I got pointed towards what kinds of citations were okay my edit has been deemed too 'editorial' and pared down to the bare minimum regarding Stallman's defense of Minsky for participating in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring.
 * While the rest of the Stallman article goes on at length about him and his opinions, something negative has to be pared down to the bare minimum at harm to whether or not it makes any sense? I can't cite a policy that says this is wrong, but: it's definitely wrong. It's removing information relevant to the discussion. I am basically done with this, though. You can have your hagiography as unmarred as possible by anything negative about Stallman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a word here: all articles I have seen so far misrepresent what he says, so be mindful. 173.24.39.178, he did not defend Epstein at all. He did not describe the victims as "entirely willing". He described them as being forced to act as if they were entirely willing. In this, he is asserting that Minsky might not have knowingly had sexual relations with the victim against her will. Whether or not that is plausible, I don't know; I'm not at all familiar with that case. All I can see is that Stallman is being misrepresented. M!dgard (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Fortunately the segment currently tends to quote Stallman directly, which avoids this.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In at least one place the section currently has a quote that's taken gravely out of context. It reads "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." The article you sourced it from is to blame for this. I copied the full quote in the PDF reference. I'd like to add the sentence about coercion, but we need a source for that. Secondary sources are easily proven deceitful so I think it is justified to quickly fix this based on the primary source for now. M!dgard (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no beef with your edit and think it's a good one. I am confused about primary vs secondary sources, however. I was specifically admonished not to use primary sources when all of this started; they, and everything supposedly from them was reverted. While I personally agree that primary sources are best, what exactly is the Wikipedia standard here? 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If primary sources are accepted, please see the section on the bottom of this talk page. I can dig you up Stallman's latest on this. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it wasn't really based on a rule, rather on common sense: I wanted to tone down this extreme statement on a WP:BLP as quickly as possible. But here we are, in The New Section someone mentioned WP:SELFPUB, so all is well. M!dgard (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be a section on his controversial views (most people consider his ideas to be creepy and wrong, maybe not the MIT community):

https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing

https://futurism.com/richard-stallman-epstein-scandal

https://thenextweb.com/dd/2019/09/13/free-software-icon-richard-stallman-has-some-moronic-thoughts-about-pedophilia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.194.26.73 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Stepping down from CSAIL at MIT, Resignation from FSF
Oh damn, the SF conservancy calls for Stallman to step down? https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/sep/16/rms-does-not-speak-for-us/

rms is socially out of touch, and his insensitive take on this bullshit isn't surprising. MIT absolutely shouldn't take the money. However, his views on this don't merit complete dismissal of the Free Software movement. Everyone who attends LibrePlanet knows and sees that rms comes from on old class of macho white nerds, and is slowly learning how to interact in a new reality. We still have a lot to learn from each other. In the mean time, let's stop 'cancelling' each other left and right, and all move forward productively.

--Njk (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   19:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also gnome, unofficially so far but: https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fsf/. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Resignation 16 September 2019

To the MIT community,

I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

Richard Stallman" -- current most recent post on stallman.org. I would readd this entire dustup to the article with the coda of his resignation but it's protected now, so, thanks to whoever runs arbitration for that. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sourced at Vice:

Resigned from FSF. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a tag for people who have been cancelled during the current moral panic, and to add RMS to that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CD00:F83B:D9BA:5F85:A785:64BC (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That would require whoever is currently editing this article to do more than the grudging minimum in mentioning the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Marvin Minsky and pedophilia
Since this talk page is a mess it occurs to me that if we're going to have to argue about this there should probably be its own section with its own thread.

For anyone coming in late: I wrote the (current) "Defense of Marvin Minsky and pedophilia" subheading. My original edits got reverted, and the current form of that section is entirely due to bringing them into compliance with Wikipedia standards that were being cited at me. Comments on the matter are scattered various places. I would appreciate it if people would say something about any further issues instead of reverting the edits wholesale, and there might as well be a dedicated spot for it.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks whoever dropped the link to the pdf of the emails here, adding it as a source.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey so btdubs I have some Stallman blog posts and emails defending himself and trying to fix his current screwup but I can't add them because I've been admonished that primary sources are bad. If any news outlets pick them up someone should add them to this section. 173.24.39.178 (talk)


 * Hi, indeed this talk page is a bit messy, discussion had already started in . I'll repeat my cautionary message here:
 * All news articles I have seen so far misrepresent what he says, so be mindful. He did not defend Epstein at all. He did not describe the victims as "entirely willing". He described them as being forced to act as if they were entirely willing. In this, he is asserting that Minsky might not have knowingly had sexual relations with the victim against her will. M!dgard (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Self-published and primary sources can be used under certain circumstances. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. If you add Stallman's response to this from his website, I doubt I will be reverting it. Haukur (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * On it. Couple of minutes. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that adds balance of a sort. I assume secondary sources will pick up Stallman's responses soon.


 * While I think this is still all far from ideal I accept that you are working in good faith here. Haukur (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I certainly disagree with Stallman's position; however, I have no objection to publishing his defenses and making sure all statements concerning him are accurate.

Hey one of you just deleted the whole segment and threatened to block me on my talk page, what the hell is this? It's cited. It's current. It's notable. It's insanely biased to omit it from his page. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You cannot use the PDF from assets.documentcloud.org. Fox News is a very poor source, unreliable on many topics, especially ones like this with connections to Trump. And you should not use any self-serving stuff from stallman.org, or anything from stallman.org that refers to other people.
 * It astonishes me that anyone would want to give Stallman a bully pulpit on Wikipedia to state his reaction to the current news pieces about him. For controversial stuff like that, we should only tell the reader what secondary sources are saying about it. Stallman's words must be funneled through an independent observer for them to have any importance. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So can I substantially restore the content, remove the documentcloud references and direct Stallman quotes, and only use the Daily Dot and Fox references? This edit would be the one I would go for: Vice had the original story and were my first choice but they're not marked reputable around these parts. All three are 'secondary sources'. I don't like Fox either but they're on Wikipedia's list and I was getting dinged for using Vice, which isn't. I can re-add Vice as a source, too, if that contributes to a showing that a wide range of news outlets are covering the story in substantially the same fashion.
 * I didn't cite Stallman with the purpose of giving him a pulpit; another editor in this edit: objected to secondary sources on those topics saying "This quote isn't in the Fox article and it is a misquote in the Daily Dot article, omitting some critical quotation marks.", so I readded the content with direct Stallman quotes and his defense to respond to the criticism. For what it's worth, I don't think the added context or his defense makes any difference. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The previously linked to---on the talk page---Daily Beast article is authoritative (https://www.thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-defends-epstein-victims-were-entirely-willing). It's of sufficient public interest that non-tech venues are publishing articles about it. It belongs in his wikipedia page. These reverts to remove this content from the page make wikipedia worse. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast article is deeply irresponsible and sensationalist with a headline that is essentially false. Stallman did not claim that "Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’". Let's wait and see if more and better sources emerge. Haukur (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Stallman's actual words were close enough to the headline to have the difference be unimportant. Stallman was talking about one person while the Daily Beast headline expands this to multiple victims, but this small change is not out of line with Stallman's previous comments, and an argument can be made that his reference to one victim, Giuffre ("...the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"), was intended as a larger defense of Epstein who habitually coerced many such victims. I think the Daily Beast article is useful here. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between one victim and many is important but not my only concern – the bigger issue is the difference between being willing and presenting oneself as willing. Haukur (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a full day and we're going back and forth about whether Fox or the Daily Beast or etc is credible; you can, right this minute, search Google News for the word 'Stallman' and have your pick of: The Register, Vice, The Daily Dot, Fox, The Daily Beast, etc, etc, etc for this particular story about Stallman. Sources range the ideological spectrum from Fox on the right to The Daily Beast on the left; several are on Wikipedia's list of good sources, many more aren't but are (imho) perfectly credible.

The story originated on Medium with a disgruntled MIT alum, was picked up by Vice, to which she gave his recent emails and which quoted his blog at length. It was from there picked up by another however many outlets of varying levels of credibility, circulated on Twitter, etc, etc, etc. It is undeniably the most prominent thing Stallman's done in years, and is him expressing an opinion about one of the most high-profile cases this year in a matter which has already seen prominent figures at MIT forced to resign. The Medium post alone has at least ten thousand eyes on it, and the readership of the various outlets that have picked it up in varying capacities is in the millions.

It's notable and it's documented in many sources, at least some of which are credible by any reasonable metric you choose to name. Because of this, and because we've had a day to hash it out in talk and the argument is about sourcing when there are *plenty* of sources, I'm putting my original block back.

I am not putting back Stallman's quotes defending himself or the PDF of his emails because they are primary sources, which I am duly informed are bad; if that is true for inculpatory statements, it is also true of exculpatory statements. If any secondary sources pick up his defenses, those can be added, but so far only Slashdot has and Slashdot speaking about open source figures is, in my opinion, not a good source. If anyone has any further nitpicks with the sourcing or how it's currently cited, please change the article to correct the issue by adding sources rather than removing content.

As of right now, the segment cites The Daily Dot and Fox repeatedly; it does this because I was making a point about primary sources and Vice not being good enough after my additions were removed, and not because it's good style or because those are the 'best' sources. If you think other sources would be better, add them. If you think the repeated citations are excessive, move them to the end of the subsection.

Again: Please don't remove this block of content from the article. This belongs in the article at least as much as mention of a talk he gave once, that he writes filk songs, and what kind of laptop he used to use. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: Putting Stallman's defense of himself directly from his blog is, now that I've read it, a clear violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB because it is transparently self-serving. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article includes some things of minor relevance – I removed some of them just now. If you want to remove the filk line, I won't restore it. It's not a great article by any means. It lacks focus in many places. Haukur (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the filk line at all. It's an interesting piece of color for a biography. I do mind omitting the current affair almost entirely when his article is comprised of things which are, almost exclusively, less notable and verifiable than his current statements. I take serious issue with this edit: . The story "has legs". I provided you, above, a laundry list of sources; if the sources currently available are insufficient, the bar for sourcing has been raised so high that no information whatsoever can be included in this article because there is not a single item on this page more extensively sourced. I don't think you can claim to be editing in good faith because the reasons you're giving for your edits are transparently false.


 * You have complained, from the beginning, about the sourcing on this story. The sourcing has always been, in my opinion, good. Inasmuch as you have articulated any specific problem with the sourcing, I have gone and gotten sources that do not have those problems, because sources are abundant on this issue. Unless you can provide some reasonable definition of what would be a 'good' source for this you're just using that as an excuse to remove mention of the issue or pare it down to a minimum. The closest you've provided to a definition of what you think would be a 'good' source on this matter is a pointer over towards Wikipedia's lists of sources, several of which were cited in the previous version of the article. You're doing this while significant portions, if not the majority, of the article as-is are sourced from single mentions in sources that are not particularly neutral, credible, or notable.


 * Barring some cogent defense of the bizarre assertion that this story doesn't have legs and isn't sourced, I am going to readd the content in another day or two with so many sources that it will be nearly unreadable soas to bring it in "compliance" with this complaint.173.24.39.178 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * All right. Revisiting this in a day or two with more sources sounds like a good idea. Haukur (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a message for Haukur: you reverted edits for multiple days about Stallman's statements and views about Minksy and pedophilia. These same statements have now led to his resignation from MIT. You make this wikipedia article worse for an extended period of time during heightened public interest. This is a disservice to wikipedia and the public. Reflect on that. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Waiting for career-affecting consequences and/or high-quality journalism was the right thing to do. Notice how gingerly CNN covers this ("CNN has not independently corroborated those comments") and how careful they are to give Stallman's side of the story. Notice how different this is to the early sensationalist pieces. Haukur (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Notice how CNN reprints his personal website, which was disallowed here. Yet they chose not to go back to the archives with the controversial material like previously discussed articles did (i.e., it's a less thorough, lazier piece). Notice how CNN gives more space to his defense and claims of "misunderstanding" than the allegations against him. You can pretend this is neutral, but it actually hews more closely to your (Haukur) fanboy "let's give him the benefit of doubt repeatedly" rather than laying out the facts. Other users thoroughly laid out those facts for the wikipedia. And you reverted them. Your basic complaint is about the headlines of the early articles, not what is contained within them. Wikipedia is not your personal platform to critique journalism and the media. Stop doing damage. 192.222.197.155 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclusion is a non-neutral point of view.173.24.39.178 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)