Talk:Richard Stallman

Todo out of date

Many parts are ancient and it generally isn't a useful guideline to current tasks imo. Anyone really mind if I wipe this and let it grow from scratch again? Chris Cunningham 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Many parts of what are ancient? The article or the talk page? --W2bh (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misread the message title. --W2bh (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the well-meaning but ultimately directionless calls to scan the article for various policy issues. These can be brought up in reviews, but aren't useful in the todo box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Inaccuracy

Re:

When MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS) installed a password control system in 1977, Stallman found a way to decrypt the passwords and sent users messages containing their decoded password (to demonstrate that they were not increasing security, but only hindering free access to each other's software and discouraging sharing it), with a suggestion to change it to the empty string (that is, no password) instead, to restore this free access

I see this has made it to Wikipedia...

He didn't actually do exactly this, though I've seen him on video describing it thus. I'm the guy who wrote the password control system! The passwords are hashed in a way that loses information. (Not actually encrypted). I've always figured he did one of two things -- either did things the (slightly) hard way, and searched for a password that would hash to the same thing, or simply recorded the unhashed password the user entered. He'd made it print out on the system console at one point.

To be fair, searching for the password would stand a good chance of finding the actual password the user gave.

This was never intended to be security -- no such thing on ITS anyway. The only reason for hashing them at all was so that snoopy people wouldn't discover what people used for their passwords, which often tend to be personal! So this hack was not a breakdown in security, but a rather juvenile (IMHO) mass (but small) invasion of privacy.

Note that null passwords WERE allowed, even after this hack. Lots of people just logged in as RMS...

Stahlman has publicly attributed this password facility to the "evil administrators" seeking control, and pressuring the hackers, etc... Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time, we were deluged with a huge influx of users from the network -- "unauthorized" users for lack of a better word, but they weren't unwelcome, overall, and accounts were given out freely. But there were a few people who were unwilling to be good citizens -- playing games, for example, when the system was already extremely overloaded with people trying to complete their thesis, etc. Or deleting other people's files. Remember, the system was wide open, and fragile, dependent entirely on the good behavior of all participants.

Things finally reached a point where keeping things from melting down was taking entirely too much time from many of us, myself included, and people's work was being seriously impeded. This was the minimum step we could take that would keep things from degenerating into chaos.

The password system simply allowed us to encourage people to not be anonymous (which helped to encourage more of a sense of community), and to impede (but not block) people intent on causing harm. We gave out accounts to just about all comers, including numerous kids, people just wanting to learn, etc. Some people, after having their accounts revoked for behaving badly, came back later with new identities and better behavior, which was fine with us.

RMS viewed all this through his own set of filters and his own unique set of moral absolutes, leading to major rage. Somehow people for whom the machines were being provided being able to use them didn't fit on his radar, but anybody should be allowed to connect anonymously from anywhere, and do whatever they wanted, no matter the impact on others. And anybody who disagreed was evil, to be opposed by any means at hand.

By the way, a point about copying all the features that we at Symbolics did into the MIT sources. I'd say it's more or less true. But the way the article is written makes it sound like either a superhuman feat (and thus unbelievable), or that we were a bunch of slackers at Symbolics!

Neither was true. He had several advantages -- he could take a lot of shortcuts, for example -- less complete functionality, less testing. Notably, he didn't have to spend the time thinking out how things should work! He could just copy functionality. He didn't have to discuss and agree with anyone either. That, and being both skilled and driven, he could move pretty fast. He even improved on our approach in a number of cases.

It'd be nice if the article were worded in a way that was more clear that the attempt was simultaneously quite real, somewhat imperfect, and yet impressive.

Note that one could question whether these comments quite fit the talk page guidelines, but I hope it's worthwhile communicating it to the editors. Feel free to delete my comments when they serve no useful purpose, or possibly move them to the article on ITS if they serve a purpose there...

Bob Kerns (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some simple changes to the sections in question to take these concerns into account. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speeches

This is what Wikiquote is for, and it's bad form to have subsections in extlinks. Can they all be moved across? Chris Cunningham 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

After 20 years of public speaking, Stallman there are only four topics that he's spoken repeatedly on. So those four links are as concise as possible a summary of his whole software freedom philosophy. On Wikiquote, there are tens or more than a hundred links, which is quite different. The subsection header can be deleted, but I don't see why. --Gronky 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: turn the "terminology" section into "public speaking", and restructure it around the speeches. Better to use them as references than just tack them on as external links. Chris Cunningham 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that in this case they are not references to prove some particular point, they are whole documents that explain concepts too large to describe completely in the article. --Gronky 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then give them articles. That's how encyclopedias work. I dare say that they already have articles. A well-written article should not simply punt important works to some external website to explain. Chris Cunningham 13:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The concepts probably do have articles, but this is about Stallman's personal take on the issues. His examples, his reasons, his logic, his methods. Actually, when something is relevant but is too long to go into an article, that's exactly what external links are for. --Gronky 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is lazy. I can't believe we've got three paragraphs about the tragic early end to his folk dancing career, but we can't actually write about the four things which actually define him as an advocate. I'm gladly nuke large parts of the article to incorporate that kind of thing. Chris Cunningham 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the speeches, if they are needed, should be included as references rather than external links. This is the type of thing that would most likely be flagged if the article ever went to Featured Article review. The article already has a rambling and anecdotal flavor, and this makes it worse. We don't need to record every single incident that happened in any of his policy-related activities. His examples, his reasons, his logic, his methods are things that people can use Google for. His speech on the issue of GPLv3, if it is needed at all, might be linked from GNU General Public License, where his arguments in favor of version 3 are discussed in the text of the article. EdJohnston 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Direct links to speeches: is everyone following the issue?

There is a small-scale edit war about some direct external links to Stallman speeches. Can someone who regularly follows this page explain things from scratch? I don't see the need for the links, personally, but a better explanation might slow down the reverting by various parties. EdJohnston 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly an "edit war" as such: User:Gronky, as is his wont, occasionally restores sections of previously-prepared text with little apparent consideration for article history, or indeed whether the content he's adding is already included on the page in exactly the same format. When this happens, I remove the duplicate section and leave a descriptive edit comment. In this case, however, User:ViolentCrime has apparently decided that this is a content dispute. No, I don't know why either.

I expect this has already died down. Chris Cunningham 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with having a seperate section for the speeches? Why are you edit warring over this? If the duplication bbothers you, remove it from the Output section, where iti is buried. ViolentCrime 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayhaps, having asked me to come to the talk page, you could participate in it yourself. Nobody's edit warring; a couple of editors made good-faith reverts without bothering to check the full picture, is all. Chris Cunningham 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you are responding to, if not my participation? You have made 5 reverts to the same section in a little over 24 hours, so you are clearly edit warring over this. In addition, you are more than a bit uncivil in your tone. If it is the duplication that bothers you, why can't we have a seprate section for the speeches, and remove the same copy in the output section? ViolentCrime 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed this in a while. My recollection is that I argued that with four links, the article could give readers access to the most concise summary of Stallman's whole software freedom philosophy. FWIW, I still think they should be there, in the external links section, not buried. --Gronky 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to ghostscript

"The Halloween Documents", Microsoft Confidential (Vinod Valloppillil, Aug 11, 1998) cites Stallman as the creator of GhostScript. The 3 major applications threatening Microsoft. according to Microsoft, were Emacs, GCC, and GhostScript. GhostScript is a key element, if not at least predecessor to CUPS. I think it is worth adding to the Emacs, GCC, and Gnu Debugger "list" in the opening paragraphs.

199.80.154.88 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they may just be wrong about that. The Ghostscript article and various hits[1][2] seem to suggest that Deutsch wrote/writes it, and Stallman merely convinced him to release all future versions under the GPL. --Gwern (contribs) 18:16 26 October 2007 (GMT)

Ghostscript#History. Chris Cunningham 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Excised section

The following section was removed because it is badly written, unverifiable, and reiterates points already in the article.

However, he was the last of his generation of hackers at the lab. He rejected a future where he would have to sign non-disclosure agreements not to share source code or technical information with other software developers and perform other actions he considered betrayals of his principles. He chose instead to share his work with others in what he regarded as a classical spirit of collaboration. While Stallman did not participate in the 1960s era counterculture, he was inspired by its rejection of the pursuit of wealth as the primary goal of living.

I think quotes illustrating the content of this paragraph would be a welcome addition. 66.117.135.137 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

I think I saw this guy in a James Bond movie as a hacker. It was the one about Rupert Murdoch taking over the world by making China go to war with the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeep (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that was Ricky Jay, playing the character of Henry Gupta in Tomorrow Never Dies. Though they do share some superficial similarity. // Meneth (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Dobb's editor

The article Free software says that Richard Stallman was an "editor of the computer hobbyist magazine Dr. Dobb's Journal" and it is marked as "citation needed".

I believe that an old issue of the journal with Stallman's name in the staff list would be a good enough citation, but i don't have a copy myself.

Does anyone have access to such a thing?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Dr. Dobb's Journal for over 20 years, says to me today in private email, "No, that's wrong. DDJ published the Gnu Manifesto which he wrote, but he was never a DDJ editor." JackWoehr (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

jewish

i suprised there is no mention of his jewish ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a defining characteristic. He doesn't practice the religion, define himself by that ancestry, or socially focus on jewish culture. Gronky (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

After putting it together, I too wondered why no mention of his Jewish ancestry is made here (both that he looks it, and his surname are good indicators). I'll admit my *own* interest is piqued by an affirmation bias of a, shall we say "certain" positive stereotype, but it seems the author has deliberately left out this information to avoid such things. I don't believe the preceding response by Gronky is apt, since many notable figures do neither the same things that he listed - how many persons described "of African-American decent" in their Wikipedia articles practice black religion? or define themselves by their black ancestry? or socially focus on black culture? In fact most public figures of ethnicity are no more 'defined' by their roots than Stallman is of his; Wikipedia mentions it because it is encyclopedic to do so.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds racist, if anything, what's the difference between a person born in a Jewish family and a person born in a non-Jewish family? Especially if the person is not religious. Race? What else then? man with one red shoe 22:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that people want to know. What's the difference between a person born in a Black/Asian/Irish family and so forth? Yet every notable person articled on Wikipedia has a blurb about their ethnicity regardless of its impact on their lives. People want to know. 76.67.111.164 (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is not that "people want to know", but that an active minority of wikipedia editors want everybody to "know". I put quotation marks around "know" because we are not dealing with a physical fact, but about what seems to be a race-like classification (as man with one red shoe well put it) that is being advocated by some people and not by others. Moreover, the label is just much too ambiguous to be of encyclopaedic worth: for most people in most places, "Jewish" is first and foremost a religious label, but then, in others, it isn't. Feketekave (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest: http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jan-apr.html#06%20March%202011%20%28Flagrant%20Censorship%29

In a flagrant act of censorship, a man is being prosecuted in France for "public insults" involving bigotry.

One of his insults was directed at "Jews" as an ethnic group. That targets me; but I find his prosecution more offensive than what he said.

Note that the emphasis on race and not religion. Although I agree it is not a defining characteristic of Richard Stallman, it is probably worth noting. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist?

Stallman is included in American anarchists and Living anarchists. However, I have never seen a source where Stallman described himself as an anarchist. The main text of the article makes no mention of it. I saw no discussion of it in the archives. Indeed, many things he's professed on his personal website (e.g., support for Nader, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats) do not seem to support that Stallman is an anarchist. If there's a credible source for this, fine; otherwise, I think Stallman should be removed from those categories. --creativename (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He is not, but opponents of the Free Software Movement like to act like he is. Lessig actually addresses this logic directly in his book Free Culture. ~ 10nitro (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A native American English speaker

This obviously needs rewriting.

• An English speaker that is a native American?
• A native speaker of American English?
• A native speaker of English that is an American?

The latter two both seem plausible, which was intended? 78.110.162.163 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove it. The exact dialect of English he uses is hardly important, and is trivially inferrable from his homeland. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

rms?

The article begins with : Richard Matthew Stallman (born March 16, 1953), often abbreviated "rms", and uses his homepage at stallman.org as a reference where he mentions : "Richard Stallman" is just my mundane name; you can call me "rms". Just because he refers to himself as "rms" does not mean it should be included, I think hes just trying to be friendly to visitors of his website. If publications or other reliable sources refer to hims as "rms" then I agree it should be mentioned. --GateKeeperX (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's well known among the Free Software community. Just do a Google search [3]. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

His abbreviated name is heavily used in correspondence. I can't imagine it would be difficult to find a reliable source which pointed out that it was the form predominantly used within the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello,

I have a question for the maintainers/administrators of this article. Is the infobox protected?
--Grandscribe (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

SAT score?

"Stallman scored 1597 on the SAT (800 Math, 797 Verbal)."

Is 797 even a possible score? I thought it was in increments of 10. Mathnerd314 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a while ago, so things may've changed. And even were that so then, doesn't the SAT have negative points for when you get a question wrong? (Although if 800 is perfect, I'm unclear how that would work.) --Gwern (contribs) 14:12 20 March 2009 (GMT)

It was me, who added the information about rms's SAT score in the first place.

Now it seems like someone removed it, saying that "SAT scores always end in 0, so the claim seems totally made-up.)"

In fact, I got this info from rms himself and I quote: "That was 800 math and 797 or 794 verbal."

I don't think rms is joking about it. Anyone can email him and check.

Also here is the list of scores of different celebrities, which demonstrates that not all SAT scores end in 0 (unless this list is also "totally made-up"):

http://www.powerscore.com/sat/help/celebrity_scores.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Im5858 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Qt/Java/Javascript trap(s)

Stallman is well-known for getting GNOME off the ground to pressure Qt into a free license, for discouraging free software written in Java until a free JDK and JVM were available, and now for identifying the "Javascript trap" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html ). These activities don't appear to be in the article.

Can I add a section saying, basically, that Stallman has run out of bigger problems to worry about with the release of GPL 3 and is therefore leading a crusade against non-free Javascript? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.121.199 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx?

Is it just me or does this guy look like Karl Marx? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.106.153 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is is brother: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&oldid=284508376#Early_years :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.105.4 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

jewish2

someone should atleast mention that "he is from jewish ancestry but doesn't practice the religion, define himself by that ancestry, or socially focus on jewish culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiftach T (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

it is like Mark Zuckerberg case, i am writting this dawn. Yiftach T (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a comment above, referencing this one, I'm in agreement but too lazy/unsure where to edit. Whoever maintains this article regularly should add it please.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. His ancestry is of no proven relevance to himself or to the general public. An encyclopaedia is no place to define people by blood (as is already being done in the notes at the bottom of the page...) simply for the purpose of doing so. Feketekave (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this.. why is everyone in wikipedia so bloody obsessed with pointing out if someone is Jewish or of Jewish descent or not... Who gives a fsck.. you don't see 90% of the articles saying person X is of Christian descent ?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.173.131 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I'm going to go ahead and just remove this section. As far as I can see there not really any point to having it, as the entire section (literally) is about some minor tizzy that happened on a few blogs a month ago, when someone took offense to a joke he made. In the scope of an article about Stallman's life, the event is meaningless, and if this event or removed or reduced the section would be empty. Currently it's about 40% as long as the Activism section which is just ridiculous. The fact that the article is basically an accusation of sexism and Stallman is a living person doesn't help much either. If anyone still thinks some blogger's personal outrage over a joke matters in a few years time, I'll be amazed. --A scientist (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to a reliable source. I'm afraid I'll have to revert you if you remove it. Yworo (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's sourced or not isn't the issue, the issue is it's of no value to the article. It's some blogger's opinion piece on why he thinks Stallman is sexist based on some joke made at a conference. That doesn't belong in an article like this. --A scientist (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Other articles have controversy sections. News is news. Yworo (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article is question is being referenced on other news sites:

• Linux Today
• OS news
• Free Software News
• Linux Today another article

I'd completely agree with you if this had remained in the blogosphere. But it hasn't. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If a bunch of guys on DailyKos got together and accused Bill O'Reilly of being a Satan worshipper, and some idiot wrote an article about their blogs, should we add a section to O'Reilly's article about the "Satan worshipping controversy"? Unless the controversy itself contributes to the notability of Stallman (which it does not) I don't see the value in violating the neutrality of a biographic article by putting a bunch of off-the-cuff personal attacks in a section and calling that a "controversy". It's not neutral, and it's not relevent to Stallman's notability.

Of the 3 articles you linked to (one is just a link to the same article), two are in the blogging/rumor sections of those websites. Only the FSDaily one is not. Regardless, the presence some article on a website is not an argument that it should also appear in an encyclopedia article. --A scientist (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, you haven't provided a valid reason why it should not, IMO. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are at least two reasons: 1) It's not neutral. 2) It's not relevent in any encyclopedic way to the article. I don't see why the opinions of some random bloggers on Stallman should be here, especially when their opinions are actually accusations of bigotry. Yes, some website did an article about all this talk that was going on. I don't think that's a good reason to include it. In the big picture of what an encyclopedia article on someone like Stallman should be, I don't think it belongs. The same would go for blogger gossip on any celebrity or important person. --A scientist (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be neutral, it's the article that has to be neutral by including both the positive and the negative. Second, it's not "some random blogger" as you put it. It's a member of the GNOME Advisory Board which was one of the groups that invited Stallman to speak. This is his host at the conference complaining. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still just some individual's speculation or opinion about something which is inherently I think a pretty serious accusation. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, it doesn't mean those opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. I think having some article and at the end saying, "by the way, these people think he's a sexist" does make the article not neutral, because it's giving space to negative opinions that have no reason to be in the article other than that someone expressed them. The fact that someone thinks Stallman is sexist, is not an encyclopedic fact about Stallman. It's someone's opinion. --A scientist (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cited opinions about someone are entirely pertinent to the article, so long as they are presented as opinion, which they were. The only reason I've not returned it is that I'm checking with the BLP team to be sure that the source meets their reliable sourcing criteria. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.... seems Stallman has a pattern. He writes here that, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children." I don't know about you, but I find that pretty scary. Yworo (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a "Blogger Roundtable" section to all our biographic articles here on Wikipedia, where (well cited, of course) quotations from the blogosphere can earn their place in articles. Because if someone said it once, it's important to the article. One FreeRepublic user was quoted as saying "Obama is a porch monkey nigger", I think this is important to Obama's article, so now all we need to do is get a website to quote it. --A scientist (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just being ridiculous. Conversation over. If BLP approves the source, I'll be restoring the section as it is pertinent to the subject's public speaking career when his conference hosts have a problem with his presentation to the extent that they plan never to invite him back to speak again. (You did read the whole article, didn't you?) Yworo (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous because it's your exact logic with regard to this section, which is also ridiculous. The fact that some person somewhere holds an opinion about someone, does not merit its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. He invited him to a conference, so? Should we also put in here what his best friends all think of him? His favorite high school teacher? --A scientist (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This occurred during the keynote presentation at the conference. He wasn't just joking around in the hallway. Yworo (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he told a joke during a presentation may be fact, but a bunch of opinion and speculation regarding sexism is still just that. An encyclopedia article is not a collection of various individuals personal opinions about someone. --A scientist (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That the remark itself was sexist is an objective fact. And that's what was reported. It did not go on to generalize to say that Stallman is sexist. Though of course that seems probable. Yworo (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The remark was not "objectively" sexist, it didn't even mention a gender. However, even if he did specifically tell an intentionally sexist joke, that would not warrant a 5-paragraph "Controversy" section full of the opinions and speculations of various bloggers about the matter. --A scientist (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It did mention gender. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? "The virgin of Emacs is any female who has not yet learned how to use Emacs. And in the church of Emacs we believe that taking her Emacs virginity away is a blessed act." Yworo (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that he used female specifically. However, whether or not any given person finds the remark sexist is still not relevent. What's relevent is whether or not these opinions belong in an encyclopedia article, which they don't. What any random individual thinks about Stallman or something he said is not important, notable or relevent. And it's especially not important when it violates the neutrality of the article. --A scientist (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find that difficult to swallow when we already have a paragraph about developers who think he is difficult to work with. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between that, and a whole section full of direct quotations, emotive language and accusations of bigotry. Accusing someone of being hard to work with is very differcent from accusing them of being sexist, racist, etc. Giving time to those kinds of opinions, which essentially cannot be defended against except by denial, is much more serious. --A scientist (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The denial was included. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Another tack

Why is this all being segregated into a "controversies" section? This is always a bad idea on BLPs because they attract cranks like flypaper. Any moments of controversy should be incorporated into the article body as a whole. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Yworo (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be in the article at all. One not-particularly-prominent website claimed that one of Stallman's remarks was sexist, then a few other blogs repeated it. That doesn't meet WP:BLP in my opinion and it also doesn't meet WP:UNDUE. If this gets reported in the mainstream tech media (bylined reporters, not blogs), then it might merit a mention, but not until then. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The source was a bylined reporter. He was reporting on what happened at the conference, in the blogs, and Stallman's response. I'm sure he won't be the only one reporting on this. As soon as there is a second source, it'll be back in. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noted three bylined stories on this: Bruce Byfield's, Thom Holwerda's, and Sam Varghese's. The Desktop Summit (the co-located GUADEC and AKaDEmy conferences) isn't particularly a press-covered event, as is true of most free software community conferences. There is ample substantiation that the remarks were made, and equally ample substantiation as to the reaction. Since it seems that Stallman has been telling the joke which led to the controversy for ten years now, during which time "no one ever complained about it", that there no mention of this incident at all in this article when people clearly are complaining about it, and that it's being dismissed as a "minor tizzy" is beginning to seem a bit worrisome, frankly. It looks a little like an attempt to whitewash. kamisori_hanzou (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least with respect to me, you're preaching to the choir, brother (or sister, as the case may be). Yworo (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have the controversy section back. I don't really understand all those arguments against it. The bloggers and those articles may be opinions of some people, true. And as an encyclopedia, opinions do not count, so we should not portray them as true. But the fact that his talk has indeed created a controversy, is just that, a fact. And it's proven by the articles, blogs and so on. So while the controversy might be not founded, indeed the it's a fact that it does exist. So it should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.0.117 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

42

Easy solution is to edit in one sentence: "Wherever rms goes, there goes controversy." JackWoehr (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stallman has never married.

I can see why.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.64.86 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedic? wow, he never married this changed my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.81.47 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He did advertise for a girlfriend on Craig's List a few years ago. I never heard whether he found one, but it's not that hard when you're famous. Bostoner (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing that Stallman is difficult to work with

I have come here from the BLP noticeboard. I have to say that the sourcing for the disputed section doesn't look good enough, at least for what it's trying to say. I think it is better to describe these issues as "disputes". All the parties are notable insofar as they all have wiki articles, but it seems that the section takes sides by labelling Stallman as difficult to work with.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article try to claim that Stallman is difficult to work with. The only relevant statement is "a number of developers view Stallman as being difficult to work with". I don't know how you could read the sources cited and not come to believe that that statement is verified by them.  Skomorokh  08:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this is an example of fundamentally inappropriate sourcing combined with making a direct claim about a living person.  Skomorokh  08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The section as it is written and as Skomorokh wants to keep it clearly reveals an intention to portray Stallman negatively as a "person difficult to work with". The use of links to E-mails by Drepper who himself has been heavily criticized by the developers contributing to glibc due to his very poor and bad communication skills and inability to work in civil way (this is documented) and which caused a fork and by Raymond, that to be fair, has been also heavily criticized for his sexist, egocentric and racist remarks(also documented) to conclude that Stallman is "difficult to work with from a political, interpersonal, or technical standpoint" clearly violates NPOV policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Drepper; it's not about Raymond; it's about Stallman. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Raymond is a sexist egocentric racist – what does that tell us about whether or not he thinks Stallman is difficult to work with? Absolutely nothing. As to your claim that "The section as it is written and as Skomorokh wants to keep it clearly reveals an intention to portray Stallman negatively as a "person difficult to work with""; not only are you assuming bad faith on my part, you're completely off base as my addition of the Leonard reference shows. For a biography of this length not to cover Stallman's renowned personality would be a failure of comprehensiveness and of neutrality, something we need to be extra mindful of considering his association with the Wikipedia project. Please put your unfounded accusations aside and debate the substance of the content.  Skomorokh  08:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I have had a closer look at the Jamie Zawinski link, and I don't see a major dispute, at least not one that could be characterised without OR. Perhaps I missed something, but none of Zawinski's postings attack Stallman as being difficult to work with - just disagreeing with how he wants things done in some software. The Eric Raymond piece describes a dispute not on working together as such, but on legal issues. The Ulrich Drepper piece certainly describes a personal dispute, but we don't have Stallman's side for it. The nature of each dispute is different, which makes it hard to pick up a theme of difficulty without SYNTH/ OR in general.

Looking around the internet for comments on Stallman, it does seem clear that there are people that really don't like him. For example, this page is interesting for the emotions Stallman generates. True as that may be, we need to use proper RS sources and remember WP:UNDUE for individual opinions. I haven't read Free as in Freedom but we really need to be looking into that kind of 3rd party sourcing before we add stuff like this. BLP sourcing rules are stricter for negative material.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Gwen Gale has done a nice job now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, I agree with you. Gwen has done a good job.--Grandscribe (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

← I too agree about GG's edit, and I've taken it further by deleting the refs to Drepper's message (because IMO it's not relevant enough) and ESR's article (because it's not about Stallman himself, only about free-software vs open-source-software). The paragraph now needs copy-editing, but I think the level of detail (brief mention of the Lucid Emacs fork plus quote from Salon.com) is pretty much right.

I also added wikilinks to Emacs, GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Debugger, because his accomplishments in creating these historically significant programs deserve mention in this article, IMO. (The pattern of implementing big applications by developing a domain-specific language — eg., Javascript and XUL in Mozilla apps — was basically due to Emacs' use of elisp.)

As mentioned above, there are lots of people out there who really dislike RMS, so we have to expect bad edits here. Best wishes to all those who keep this article in good shape — CWC 11:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if there's very good RS about people disliking him, it could go in. But RS would have to be someone commenting on other people's dislike, not their own.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Attacked by Ninjas?

I think that the whole ninja attack at Yale should be included. Not entirely sure if its noteworthy, but I'm curious as to wether or not it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.225.12 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

invention of Gravmass

I question the statement Stallman invented Gravmass. Even if it is a legitimate quotation - if my suspicion that the claim itself is false is correct then the factual error should be noted if the quotation is used. My impression is that Robert Forward, gravitational physicist and SF author, invented Gravmass. It is definitely in one of his books and I don't remember any attribution. Possibly Forward lifted it from Stallman without attribution or possibly the attribution was there and I've forgotten it but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.116.36 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

rms says that James Hogan might have conceived the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

copyleft

I don't think he invented copyleft. I saw a picture of someone else who used the term not as leftist but as the opposite of right, meaning not copyrighted. I can't find the picture at the moment, but maybe someone else has heard of this old program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenzyface (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me a letter. On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings, including this :one:

“Copyleft—all rights reversed.” I used the word “copyleft” to name the distributionconcept I was developing at the time. Source: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html Not proof of course, but useful nonentheless. - MeatyDoughnut (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.56.200 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous Claims

• "Stallman recommends not owning a mobile phone,[69] as he believes the tracking of cell phones creates harmful privacy issues.[70] Also, Stallman avoids use of a key card to enter the building where his office is.[71] Such a system would track doors entered and times. For personal reasons, he does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox.[70]"

Can someone verify or present additional sources for these absurd claims? Some of the sources seem either falsified, out-of-context or just purely comical in nature. I find it hard to believe these were anything but bad jokes.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you think that everybody should have the same opinion as you have about cell phones, privacy, and internet browsing? If you have a problem with a source remove it, sources need to be reliable, but only because you don't find that plausible is not a good reason to question a source. man with one red shoe 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it good reason to question a source if it's a he-said she-said from "informationweekly.com"? It's not that I find the quote implausible, but I do find it so that the article passes it off as his opinion, when in fact it should merely quote him as saying so (if that is the case). Saying something for the sake of audience entertainment and adopting it as a personal mantra are often confused, but separate ideas. For that reason I feel many Wikipedia users would be more comfortable knowing this came from a reputable source or sources 76.67.111.164 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

About Manchester Talk Reference

This is a very minor thing. I recently added a link to the Manchester talk given by Stallman. Please note that I didn't listen to the lecture to verity the claim made in the text. This probably should be a TODO item of sorts. --Rantir (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Stallman needs a controversy or criticism section. I can recall disputes with the OSI and Torvalds over open source vs free software over open source vs free software. We should include some of the controversies, he has stirred up like [[4]],[[5]],[[6]],[[7]]. 97.77.55.38 (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of controversies and criticisms of him, so they are definitely worth adding. The GNU/Linux dispute is a big one. There are a lot of people and organizations that don't like him, and their points should be presented. If well done, this would make the article more neutral. Wingtipvortex (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as they are encyclopedic (most controversies are not of encyclopedic nature anyway) and if they come from reliable sources, we shouldn't post here any criticism that appears in blogs... Also, I think that having a separate "Controversies" section attracts poor contributions and POV edits. Also this should not be used as a vehicle for people who disagree with his ideas. man with one red shoe 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed a critcism section is needed. I mean the guy claims he likes "freedom" yet buys a computer designed and built China. Talk about hypocrisy. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. As above poster said, a separate "Controversies" section attracts poor contributions and POV edits. Criticism, or for that matter pure praise, should be worked into the article where they are relevant and only if there is reliable secondary sources. Most opinions (good or bad) made about a public person can never be added to wikipedia articles simply because the only sources that exist is primary sources of a person describing his or her personal opinion on the matter. This is a good thing. Articles on politicians would be impossible to read if half of it would be people who say "we like this person", and half with "we do not like this person". It is better, as described by Wikipedia policy, to simply describe what is and then let the reader form his own opinion on the matter of good or bad.Belorn (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, per WP:CRIT: Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". That's a pretty clear message. -- man with one red shoe 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New photo

The new photo is recent, but not as high-quality as the previous one. I suggest restoring the photo to the old one. I mean great, this photo is recent, but it doesn't provide any better quality to the article.--OsamaK 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fear"

I inserted the following sentence:

Stallman surprised others by refusing to participate in the Putnam Competition, however, due to his fear and dislike of head-to-head competition.

Lentower (I am aware of his long personal/professional connection with Stallman) reverted this, however, commenting "rm not-notable blp issued sentence".

Two issues:

• Is Stallman's refusal to participate in Putnam notable? I say yes because it indeed is very surprising for a top performer in Math 55—as Stallman was—to not do so. In turn, this leads to the next point...
• Is there a BLP issue? I don't see how. Chapter 4 of the William biography is very clear that Stallman's fear and dislike of competing with others was the reason:

Surprised that Stallman, the best student in the class, had passed on the test, Breidbart says he and a fellow classmate cornered him in the dining common and demanded an explanation. "He said he was afraid of not doing well," Breidbart recalls.

Breidbart and the friend quickly wrote down a few problems from memory and gave them to Stallman. "He solved all of them," Breidbart says, "leading me to conclude that by not doing well, he either meant coming in second or getting something wrong."

Stallman remembers the episode a bit differently. "I remember that they did bring me the questions and it's possible that I solved one of them, but I'm pretty sure I didn't solve them all," he says. Nevertheless, Stallman agrees with Breidbart's recollection that fear was the primary reason for not taking the test. Despite a demonstrated willingness to point out the intellectual weaknesses of his peers and professors in the classroom, Stallman hated the notion of head-to-head competition.

"It's the same reason I never liked chess," says Stallman. "Whenever I'd play, I would become so consumed by the fear of making a single mistake that I would start making stupid mistakes very early in the game. The fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy."

The incident seems to be illustrative of important aspects of Stallman's personality, which are relevant to a biographical article. Ylee (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I severed my connection with Stallman in 1997. Even when I volunteered with him, we had significant differences. As a WP editor, I want to see the encyclopedia's guidelines followed, with the articles well-written, not burdened with trivia and inconsequential details.

• At that time, Stallman had already discovered the AI Lab, and was much more deeply into programming and system design (white hat hacking), that he was involved at Harvard. He put in the time necessary to graduate magna cum laude, but his heart was down at MIT, as were more than half his waking hours.
• You have not made a case, that this is illustrative of important aspects of Stallman's personality. To do that, would take more examples.
• This happened when Stallman was still maturing as a human being. To include it without evidence that it is still the case, pushes BLP. It implies that fear was then, and remains a major motivation for Stallman.
• Sam Williams' book has many problems, and needs to be handled with care as a reliable source. He was more interested in writing a book that would sell, than one that was good biography. I hope he isn't doing significant editing here on WP, unless his goals in writing have changed

With all these problems, and the fact that this sentence adds very little to the article, it should remain deleted. Lentower (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Quotations" section

Hello Wikipedians. Ok, I made an edit to the article removing the tags Template:Trivia and Template:Quote farm from the "Quotations" section and I think I ought to explain why here on the talk page so this doesn't devolve into an editwar or whatever.

• I removed the Trivia tag because the quotes aren't trivial; they have a unique common theme, that being the philosophical beliefs of the article's subject (who is, after all, best known for his philosophical beliefs) and they are therefore relevant to the subject of the article.
• I removed the Quote farm tag because there are only four quotes present and though the template links to the page WP:QUOTE which advocates that users "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section," WP:QUOTE is merely an Essay, not a policy and therefore should be treated as such. Four (apparently representative) quotes in an article whose subject appears to live to give quotes [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] are surely not "overuse of quotations," by any good standard.
• I gave citations for the two quotes which were missing them. 207.65.109.10 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the two citations.

I assume you mean well. Since you edited under an IP address, not a registered account, it's hard to verify that you are an inexperienced editor here on Wikipedia. But your deletion of these two edit boxes, and the arguments you made above, as well as the contribution history on your IP address, indicate that you are.

These quotations do not add anything encyclopedic to the article, that is not already stated. If you feel they do, they should be moved into the descriptive text. Otherwise, they should either be deleted, or moved to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman. Which is what the two boxes together instruct.

Good encyclopedic writing does not involve adding more and more to an article. It does involve continual refinement and tightening of an article to the 'gems' that quickly and effectively communicates about the article's subject. WP articles are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. That's achieved by providing the reader with links to quality reliable sources, and providing links to other references.

The Wikipedia Project some years ago, decided that quotations in articles should be included carefully, and only when they add to the encyclopedic quality of the article. It also recognized that lists of quotations were something of value to our readers, and set up the Wikiquote project for that purpose. A list of Stallman's quotes is over there, and a link to those quotes is in the article here. Lentower (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He is an atheist so having jewish in Ethnicity is misleading

he is an atheist so having jewish in ethnicity is a bit misleading . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing ethnicity with religion? If it's confusing, it's because it's a confusing issue. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

no, its not! im jewish and israeli, my grand parents ere holocaust survivers, and i dont belive in anything. im still jewish. most of the jews are seculars. please learn the subject before youre talking. יניבפור (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not misleading. You'll find most famous Jews outside of Israel are atheist, or at least secular. InverseHypercube 18:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the Infobox has his Religion as Atheist, and his Ethnicity as Jewish, which seems just right to me. The Infobox coders enforce the display order. I haven't looked into why, or if it can easily be overridden.

יניבפור (talk): From what I can see, some jews are secular. Not all that important on a Talk page, but quite important in an article's text, and should have RS citations backing it up in an article. Lentower (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to get into this infinite topic - but surely you can call yourself Jewish without labelling everybody else who happens to have Jewish descent automatically as "Jewish" or "Jews"? If ethnicity is about culture, then this amounts to presuming that descent determines culture. If ethnicity is about classifying people by bloodlines, then, well, does such a categorisation really belong here?

Note the footnote used as a reference, when called "Jewish" (and pressed slightly) by an interviewer, he states precisely: "I am an atheist but of Jewish ancestry." It would seem to be a relevant nuance. Feketekave (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether most or only a few Jews are secular isn't really relevant. Stallman self-identified as having Jewish ancestry, and as being an atheist. Nuanced, yes, but also referenced. The article doesn't seem misleading to me, as ethnicity is not necessarily about culture, especially in the United States. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

- Stallman made a nuanced statement in reply to a journalist who defined him as Jewish. This is not the same sort of self-identification as going around with a poster-board saying "I'm Jewish". That aside, what is being stated, namely, a blunt category, is not the same as what is being referenced.

We are all aware that some people use "ethnicity" to mean descent. The matter here is twofold: (a) this is not a universal usage; (b) this may be an unencyclopaedic usage, especially for living individuals (what right do we have to classify and define people according to ancestry?) This is a controversy we can nicely sidestep, not by saying "Ethnicity: Not Jewish" (or: Not Italian, Not Gypsy, etc.) but by not having that entry in the infobox in the first place. (It is still a fairly uncommon entry.) Feketekave (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:FSF-Logo.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh the irony! Tom Pippens (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This was resolved on 24 August 2011 with the decision of keeping the image.Belorn (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone"

This is the second time I delete a section on this subject.

This primary source:

Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.

—Richard Stallman, http://stallman.org/archives/2011-jul-oct.html#06_October_2011_%28Steve_Jobs%29

resulted in:

Stallman have showed significant dismay towards Proprietary software leaders such as Apple's Steve Jobs and Microsoft's Bill Gates. Free software ideas have led to harsh statements, such is the case following Steve Jobs' death, where Stallman noted: “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.”

This is about as clear attempt to WP:OR you get in Wikipedia, including the use of WP:WEASELWORDS and misquotation. First off, try find a reliable third party source. If not, and you are going to use this primary source, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (WP:RS). At the moment, I would simply wait and see if a third party source picks this up, or alternative quote the whole thing verbatim.Belorn (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You could argue he did not said it in his own words, but anyone honest enough will at least admit he said that in a "indirect way". It is also clear from the quote Stallman considers Steve Jobs guilty of "evils", therefore the obvious connection implying "he his glad" because one "evil enemy" is no longer here. Regarding sources, we fortunately have many, including this one from forbes saying Stallman lacks taste, this zdnet article calls it essentially one of the "craziest things I’ve come across"; gizmodo reports Strange, Misguided Man "Glad" Steve Jobs Not Around Anymore; IBM Times reports Stallman's words were grossly inappropriate; Also Mashable reports that Stallman went "too far". There is a lot more coverage, but this is just the ones considered the most "reliable". --Jerebin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There is many different interpretations, and everyone, including each and every reader must be allowed to make his own. This is the essence and soul of most I can read in WP:OR and WP:RS. Thus, talking about the sources. Forbes is a new organization, but the article you linked looks like a Editorial commentary, or opinion by the writer Brian Caulfield. The gizmodo article is a blog, and by explicit statement in WP:SPS, we can not use it in a article about a living person. IBM Times article looks good in parts, so long we follow WP:BLP. To empathize: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Mashable article is a Editorial commentary, or opinion by its author (say's so explicitly). So to sum up, IBM Times article is the only article I think could be used at all, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone(WP:BLP). Belorn (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Subject got slashdoted, and they use a other soure, one I would say is a bit better than the IBM times article since it uses a more dispassionate tone of reporting. LATimes article.Belorn (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We can remove the whole original research and loaded words, but we could include a paragraph where we quote him, for example this part: "[...] we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing." and quote some other people that say about him that he has strong opinions or such (not that hard to find). That opinion about Jobs is clearly not mainstream... man with one red shoe 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to include the statement verbatim, its the most simplistic way to let the reader make his own opinion about the matter. As for peoples personal opinion, I would avoid them if the person making them is not directly relevant to the article. Belorn (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad with the change you made, it's better to let him speak for himself without characterizing what he said. man with one red shoe 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Belorn, I disagree with your assessment of the sources: The forbes article might be opinion, but it's not a random blog opinion, in fact, it's an article published on the official website of a widely very credible news organization. If we take your reasoning to an extreme, nothing can be criticized on wikipedia, no matter how reliable sources are, because criticism, by its very definition, is "opinion". Regarding Gizmodo being a blog, and therefore not considered a reliable source, I consider it a wrong generalization of what the policy says: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Being a blog does not automatically make the source not acceptable, and Gizmodo is generally considered a reliable source and used in many wikipedia articles. To be clear, I find arguments like "I's a blog, therefore not a reliable source" as baseless as "I's a website, therefore not a reliable source" and I hope people on wikipedia realize that. I have expanded the topic, since I believe wikipedia should not ommit the reactions to Mr. Stallman comments. I also tried to follow every policy, in particular NPOV and BLP, but of couse things can be always improved. --Jerebin (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say they were random blog opinions, but rather as it is described in WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. It mean if I am allowed to speculate, that you can use them, but they need to correctly attribute, and by WP:BLPPRIMARY, used with extreme care since they are then primary sources. Its not a black and white rule that forbids everything. That said, it does mean there should be a good reason if one include them, like the author being authoritative on the subject matter.Belorn (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get why is this notable enough to be included in the article. Stallman has said many controversial things over the time and they always have plenty of commentary both in support and against, and it is not proper for the article to include a whole list of them. It also seems to have PoV the list of negative reactions seems to outweigh the length of the quote. I suggest this section to be removed for lack of notability.

190.103.73.227 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that it has been blown totally out of proportion, but at the same time, it has garnered a lot of press (and not just logs and forums), and continues to be a sticking point for an awful lot of people. I see it brought up pretty much every time Stallman gets mentioned these days. Whatever our personal opinions are on it, it's certainly "notable" as per the guidelines. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would pref to remove all the opinions from primary source (LA times, mashable, forbes, gizmod, IBTimes, ZDNet), and just keep the one that is a secondary sources (article about Eric Raymonds comment and summery of the controversy). Primary sources should not really be used if possible (see above posts), and I do not see how those articles with primary sources actually give anything distinctively new to the article. Please read the source before reverting. Addtionally, in the primary source that theregister article talks about, raymond say: "Certainly RMS’s remarks were rude, intemperate, and ill-timed". If we are to add any primary sources, atleast Raymond opinion is better to use than a random author's personal opinion. could that be a middle-ground option if the current text isnt enough?Belorn (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: WP:DUST. Six weeks later, no one cares about this. (I'm neither for it or against it. I think it was well said, and the comments on the Slashdot article are surprisingly uniform in praising him for saying it. But I'm not sure it deserves a mention.) Gronky (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)