Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 17

Resignation section... again
Lazer-kitty, it appears that you have been trying to change the resignation section for the past month. While opening a noticeboard request was the right way to go about this, there still remains a presumption in favour of removing unsourced claims about a controversy from a BLP. The one that I referred to as "egregious" was the line saying that Stallman asserted that the accusation did not provide grounds to definitively label Minksy's actions "assault" or "rape".

If you have not done so already, please familiarize yourself with the extensive RfC at Talk:Marvin Minsky. It hinged upon the fact that there is no known sexual assault accusation that Virginia Giuffre or anyone else has made against Marvin Minsky. Knowing this, the line above would at minimum have to be reworded to say that "Minsky's actions" are only actions that Ghislaine Maxwell hoped Minsky would commit. This rabbit hole does not sound appropriate for a biography of Stallman. His objection to how "assault" and "rape" were invoked on the list is already well summarized by the line Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing". This is also the one covered in sources the most. Connor Behan (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ the minsky line should be removed. (or a qualifier like "alleged" should be used). the quotations that are present in the article right now do not summarize very well stallman's indagations "assessments", framed like that, it almost sounds like stallman said she was willing to be sexually abused . fuller quotations should be added (so readers can get the context and arguments right).  -   (talk)  09:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Alleged" would still be too strong a word because Giuffre never said that Minsky did anything. The allegation only exists in the minds of readers who misinterpreted what she said. Also, it is only our job to summarize Stallman's indignations if enough reliable sources did so as well. The core of the controversy (Stallman's injudicious words sounding similar to the phrase you underlined) is already there but I will try to think of a neutral sentence that adds more detail. Connor Behan (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why so many folks on this wiki think it is our job to go to bat for Stallman. It's not. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

[Comment directed to no one in particular] - It's our job to write fact-based articles. And to do that, we need to carefully analyse the facts and what reliable sources said about them (without engaging in WP:OR, of course). We should not simply be carried away by sensationalist hysteria-driven click-bait headlines. This is NOT about favouring Stallman or Minsky, It's about giving our readers accurate information, and not misleading cancel-culture zines. -  (talk)  18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sensationalist hysteria-driven click-bait headlines
 * misleading cancel-culture zines
 * Hmm. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

MIT
The "Harvard University and MIT" section is mainly about his early period there, and then jumps to his resignation. Nowhere in the article it is explained what he actually did at MIT or what his position there was from about 1980 to 2019. Bever (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pointed this out here --  (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anybody object to the changes I proposed above? -   (talk)  09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how this article curiously alluded FOUR times to the 2019 Resignation controversy (even in the "EARLY life" section) and that didn't raise bias concerns (and apparently still doesn't). - but god forbid that we have any sentence perceived as being slightly "defensive" of Stallman somewhere. 🙏🙏😓😓 -   (talk)  09:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging -   (talk)  14:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Dave, this is a two month old discussion that predates literally the entirety of the previous debates we had about this article. It's incredibly silly to come back now and be like "well no one objected to it!" Furthermore, multiple admins have suggested that voluntarily stop editing this article and you have indicated that you would take that advice. Yes, that is voluntary, you don't have to do it, but if you are going to ignore that advice and resume editing this article then I would've at least hoped you learned something from the experience and don't just pick up where you left off. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn’t “predate” anything. And yeah, I waited for objections for a reasonable time before making the changes myself (this is a common and good practice). Stop trying to censor me, focus instead on providing rationale for your edits: What’s the reason for including something that happened last year in a section dedicated to his early life (his early life was almost half a century ago), furthermore: that paragraph is redundant, we have a whole section dedicated specifically to that matter. Why do you think it’s necessary and a good idea to include it there? -   (talk)  14:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to censor me
 * Every single time with the baseless and unnecessary personal attacks... Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop doing this, man. Please. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to. Just explain your reasonings, please. -   (talk)  19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that a section is poorly phrased, rephrase it. If you think that it's in the wrong location, relocate it. But it concerns me that a page with such a rich history of wholesale NPOV violations has garnered the undying attention of an editor who insists upon removing pieces of information related to a certain event. Your reasoning above does not support your edit. You do not explain why this information should be removed. I would strongly encourage you to explain that reasoning, or better yet, just stop doing this. You are of course free to edit whatever you want but you were told by multiple admins that it would be in your best interest to stop editing this article and you agreed. What made you change your mind? Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my god… Is this for real??? I can’t believe I’ll have to explain to you what redundancy means. ZERO information is being suppressed. Everything that I’d removed was still present in other parts of the article, in the appropriate sections.
 * This is what I removed (from the EARLY life section):
 * "Stallman resigned from MIT in 2019 after an email exchange related to Jeffrey Epstein, and Marvin Minsky's alleged sexual exploitation of a minor."


 * This is what the lead says (and I didn’t remove ):
 * "In September 2019, Stallman resigned as president of the FSF and left his ‘visiting scientist’ role at MIT after it was alleged that his remarks in a discussion of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal condoned underage prostitution."


 * This is what the “Resignation from MIT and FSF” section says (and I didn’t remove ):
 * "An internal MIT CSAIL listserv mailing list thread was started to protest the coverup of MIT's connections to Epstein. In the thread, discussion had turned to deceased MIT professor Marvin Minsky, […] Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" […] On September 16, Stallman announced his resignation from both MIT and FSF."


 * Now explain why u want to add that redundancy in the EARLY LIFE section specifically. -   (talk)  19:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

An Afterthought On The Resignation
I was one of the users in this particular edit war when Stallman's resignations were happening, and I thought I'd check in.

I see from the current state of talk that arguments over the POV of that section of this article remain ongoing, what, a year later? It doesn't really matter who I was in that particular war, but I remember the experience being thoroughly unpleasant, with regular editors citing regulations against me specifically to privilege a POV regarding Stallman's then-ongoing controversy and following series of rolling resignations.

I don't like the current version of the article. It cherry-picks important events from that debacle which cannot be denied, and then minor ones which support a specific POV. It only barely, grudgingly manages to appear, at a first glance if one is not familiar with the event, to have an NPOV. I would love to give it a thorough go-over try to make it what I would see as a little more even-handed, something that at least resembles a neutral and encyclopedic treatment of the event, but honestly the initial round of dealing with this rather soured me on editing wikipedia for controversial topics as opposed to extremely niche ones.

If anyone reads this and has the stomach for dealing with very lawyerly objections based on wikipedia policies, but blatantly meant to push a POV, you might consider checking the available sourcing from the time and give it another go so that this article actually explains what happened. 216.106.94.95 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph on the open letter should be removed
1. It unbalances the point of view by claiming that thousands support the removal of Stallman and not even mentioning the opposition.

2. The article does not say that thousands of people have signed the petition, it merely says there were over 2,000 signatures. Many of the github accounts attached to these signatures have no identity attached to them and could have been sockpuppets.

3. This petition as of yet has had no impact. This petition hasn't convinced the entirety of the FSF board to resign and it probably never will. However, the way it is placed in the article could mislead the reader into believing so.

It can always be added back later when the dust has settled, but I can't see how there is any benefit to keeping it right now. I thought that encyclopaedias were meant to be factual records of what happened, not sports-style commentaries that boldly proclaim what side is winning before the secondary sources have caught up (A single arstechnica article that is still being actively updated doesn't really count).

69.153.11.26 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with most of what you said and would like to stay away from the case until the dust settles, the article is going to get updated with this information all over again and reverting those edits on and on will be seen as a sign of bad will, just as well as keeping it.


 * The best could be done here is keeping it inline with referenced sources, adding new as they come, and this way keeping both sides of the discussion at bay. If you see the paragraph as one-sided, then make improvements, although please stay away from removing it whole. – K4rolB (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Links in Stallman's quotes
The article currently contains this sentence, which I take issue with:

> When challenged by other members of the mailing list, he added "It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17".

I feel like the links change the context of Stallman's quoted statement. Therefore, I made a change removing these links, with this reasoning:

> Remove misleading links to judicial definitions of "right", as in "There is no right to rape." where the quote is considered with moral definitions of "right", as in "Rape is not the right thing to do." -

However, my change was reverted by User:Daveout, which is why I seek discussion on this topic:

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these links are informative, thus useful to this topic. -

Firstly, thanks for providing some reasoning to reverting my change that I can pick up on.

In what way are these links "informative" in this context? Stallman's statement is concerned with rape as a moral concept, while these links provide context on the legal framework regarding the age of consent in the states of the USA and the illegality of rape in the world. So they seem utterly irrelevant to me.

In what way are these links "useful" in this context? They inform the reader of nothing that is relevant to the topic of the morality of rape. So at best they can be useless, but I am of the opinion that they even are misleading and thus harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:8452:A00:2AE1:A85F:24FB:ACE7 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that in that quote he was talking about statutory rape and he was responding to someone who was basing their arguments on age of consent laws. I'm aware that that isn't Stallman's view, as he is trying to rebut it. Those links help the reader notice how age of consent may not be a very objective and stable criterion to define rape. But again, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong and could definitely use some outside opinions here. -  (talk)  16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe a better solution is to quote the person Stallman is responding to or otherwise integrate their thoughts into the text. The links in Stallman's quote suggest that Stallman uses the definitions given in the linked articles instead of him trying to rebut them. However, this article isn't about said other person, but about Stallman. Is this context really necessary? I feel like Stallman's word are quite quotable here and can stand for themselves.


 * I see that your interpretation of the linked articles is very much valid. However, it was not my first thought. In my first reading, thought these links were suggesting that there is a relatively clear consensus on the age of consent, if only in an US-centric world view. Likewise, the list of countries considering rape illegal being as long as it is, seemed to suggest to me that there is a wide consensus about that. So, I got the impression that these links a passive-aggressive way of counteracting the intended meaning of Stallman's words. Can we be sure that readers notice how age of consent is somewhat ambiguous and that the list of countries defining rape as illegal is incomplete? 2A01:C22:8452:A00:2AE1:A85F:24FB:ACE7 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the links, I think it's clearer now. -   (talk)  19:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. These links are much better as their lists contain more diversity of opinions about the topics. I still feel like they provide ways of coming to the same conclusion as Stallman in his quote from a wholly different angle, but at least they work for me now. Following your lead, I will also acknowledge that my conception of Stallman's statement might be wrong. So with your last change, the issue I was having is resolved. Thanks a lot. 2A01:C22:8452:A00:2AE1:A85F:24FB:ACE7 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal life
The reference to spoken languages is a primary source and should be excluded.

The claim under this section that Stallman is an antinatalist is not only not supported by the linked source, it is directly contradicted.

"I don't wish that nobody had any children; I don't want humanity to disappear. But there is no risk of that; no chance that my influence could be so great as to reduce the birth rate to near zero. Given the numbers I am likely to influence, the influence is all to the good."

Antinatalism is the position that nobody should reproduce. It is not the position that fewer people should reproduce, that some people should not reproduce, or that the human population should decrease. If those positions were described as antinatalism, then much to most of the world's population could be described as antinatalist.

Please correct this obvious error. Thank you. Cfrhansen (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Justice for Stallman
Happened to come across a few works published on GitHub. It has a bunch of cited sources inside probably worth to look at in light of recent RMS-gate events. Checkout: -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Mention of RMS support among free software community and outside, regarding the attacks he is facing since 2019
The paragraph "Resignation from MIT and FSF", gives the impression no one is supporting Richard Stallman (except for the mention of the support letter), despite the support from a significant part of the software community and prominent figures. Here is what I propose to add:

User:Daveout rolled back this addition, arguing that "I fear that the current redaction has some due weight imbalance. And self-published sources like blogs and github are not good sources."

I'd like for this user or others to do the effort to argue more precisely in which way the due weight guidelines applies here.

Let me argue why I think it does not apply :

In essence, due weight tell us that :

and also :

I don't want to argue the defenders of rms are in the majority (as it is showed by the roughly equal number of signature for each open letter, we could say that the viewpoint thinking rms done nothing wrong is as strong as the other one, but that argument is not even needed here.). Everyone agree I think that the third case does not apply (2400 vs 2500 with prominent figure on each side does not equal "extremely small minority"). My point is the viewpoint supporting of rms constitute *at least* a significant minority and IS held by prominent figures of the free software movement or feminist movement who said so publicly. Like Nadine Strossen, Loïc Dachary or even Eric S Raymond (he signed the letter).

Regarding the "self-published sources like blogs and github" they are only there to source who "other" is referring to (the sources was at the end of the phrase in the rolled back edition, I put them next to the introductory "other" word here) and is a completely valid wikipedia usage. They are not there to prove that some fact is true or not, just who "others" are.

Also the proposed addition does not suggest that "a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view.", it simply state the facts in a neutral way. (furthermore it is not clear at all that the view that Stallman's actions and statements were misrepresented is held by a small minority.)

Let's keep emotions outside this question and debate politely with wikipedia related aguments. If Daveout or anyone else does not present more detailed arguments against this addition  in a reasonable time I will fell free to proceed with the edit. MaxLanar (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In this case, the relevant part of WP:DUE that I was referring to is this one “Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail”. For example, you included a proportionately large quote from Nadine Strossen. She isn’t as relevant in this context as GNOME, Firefox, RedHat, nor X (all of which expressed support for the anti-Stallman letter; their relevance was even acknowledged by the source that is referenced in the article). The source of the pro-Stallman letter, on the other hand, doesn’t acknowledge any particular relevance to individual signatories. At this time, I’m in favor of a more succinct approach. But if we are going to get into details about who signed what, that should apply evenly and fairly to both parties. -  (talk)  17:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there an official support/statement from the "GNOME, Firefox, RedHat, nor X" against Stallman, or it is just some people from there are expressing their opinion? I know that some of these are withdrew their FSF support because of this, but still, it is always better to see the full picture. Because there is a lot of difference between personal opinions of some members and official position of company/organization.--95.174.101.83 (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Those are the organizations' official instances. It doesn't mean that ~all~ developers working on those projects agree with that take. But some individuals, those top executives and board members, have the powe to speak on behalf of the entire company. And so they did. (this is the info we have so far) -   (talk)  09:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on this with Daveout as the section is not the place to give both sides any argumentation. It is to report on the controversy. I see some of your text added back if someone can find secondary sources, but I am sure, that quote from Nadine Strossen is unnecessary, as it is a primary source to the ongoing controversy. – K4rolB (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * After reading your arguments and the whole section again, I agree my addition could proportionally give too much weight to this view. Especially with the prominent Strossen quotation (it should at least be inline). "The section is not the place to give both sides any argumentation." -> I agree too. I may propose another formulation when I have the time. Thanks. MaxLanar (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Journalists misquoted RMS
How about finding a source for and adding a mention of how some journalists misquoted Stallman's expression that started with a sentence beginning with "The most plausible scenario is that she presented", even to the point of claiming he defended Epstein himself and said his victims were entirely willing (The Daily Beast)? --AVRS (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes please. --M!dgard (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally agree his quotation was edited to change its meaning to the worst possible interpretation. I'm not sure if any reputable secondary sources choose to comment on that though...? -Reagle (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not a native English speaker, but it seems that
 * * the "accusation" of Minsky was created no later than Russell Brandom's article in The Verge (the quote from the court there did not say he was accused, or even when, and, I think, Giuffre wasn't 100 % sure about the location, and she may have been there multiple times).
 * * "entirely willing" was taken out of context no later than the "Remove Stallman" post by Selam Gano.
 * * No idea about the defense part.
 * --AVRS (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (IANAL, I haven't read much of the documents.) The date of a travel (March 2001) is from a deposition, uploaded as "Document(9).pdf", "Case 18-2868, Document 283, 08/09/2019, 2628241, Page277 of 883". But there it's said to be about New Mexico (Zorro Ranch). --AVRS (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)