Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:29, 23 September 2006

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Eric S. Raymond (talk · contribs) / Raymond, Eric S. Raymond, Eric S.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Esr (talk · contribs) / Raymond, Eric S. Raymond, Eric S.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Why no reference to 2nd amendment?

Why is referring to gun rights as Second Amendment gun rights controversial? Particularly when the person under discussion claims his rights derive from the 2nd amendment? It seems to be introducing a point of view by removing it. RussNelson 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since many of the people who want to ban guns rely on interpreting the 2nd ammendment in such a way that it doesn't actually give gun rights, just writing '2nd ammendment gun rights' implies that it does, countering their point of view. I get the logic, even though it is extremely intellectually dishonest to try to interpret the ammendment that way, but as US politics has shown for 200 years, intellectually dishonest people have points of view too. BillWallace 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, which is a simple fact. So, when someone is said to be supporting "Second Amendment gun rights", that would implicitly assert a particular interpretation of it and consequently that opponents hold an unconstitutional view. That would thus be a violation of NPOV. -- Dissident (Talk) 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Dissident, I get that, however, this is not an article about the 2nd Amendment, it's an article about Eric Raymond. The article about the 2nd Amendment is a click away for anybody wanting to find out why Eric might feel that the 2nd Amendment is the source of his gun rights, or why other people might disagree with him. The referenced web page documents Eric's belief, so the fact that he makes that claim is well substantiated, and not anybody's point of view. RussNelson 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The straightforward interpretation of "Second Amendment gun rights" is "gun rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment". The fact that ESR believes in "gun rights" is itself uncontroversial as well as his belief that it emanates from the Second Amendment, but both beliefs must be explicitly attributed rather than implicitly taken as a fact. If you think, not unreasonably, that dwelling on the Second Amendment in the intro of ESR is misplaced, then you shouldn't be against my earlier action of simply removing the mention of the "Second Amendment". -- Dissident (Talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that I don't understand why you would remove a documented fact about someone. Do you disagree that Eric ascribes his ability to own guns to the 2nd Amendment? Other people might think that they have a right to own a gun simply through human rights or natural law. Eric seems not to, so I think it's worthwhile to leave the text as you have currently written it. RussNelson 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Second Amendment is a piece of supporting evidence; he doesn't own a gun because of the Second Amendment, it's just an argument he uses to justify his decision. Chris Cunningham 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial opinion statement

I've altered the controversial opinion section to change the insupportable and gratuitously inflammatory "African-Americans are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crimes because they have lower IQs", which the cited blog entry does not say at all, to the more accurate and neutral claim that is actually found in the blog entry, namely "median intelligence varies across gender and racial lines." palecur 08:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in restarting this flame war, but the blog entry does have this nugget:

In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color.

If the orignal paraphrasing "does not say at all" what the blog entry, then it is a weak argument to replace it with the neutered "median intelligence varies across gender and racial lines" which surely does not characterize the thrust of Raymond's article. That statement would be the summary of an academic paper from the 1920s, not an opinion piece. --69.165.73.238 13:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The new phrasing crosses the line into whitewashing IMO, and leaves the reader wondering just what is so controversial about Raymond's view anyway (and perhaps why his critics are so apparently thin-skinned). If anything the original phrasing had already toned down Raymond's claim by stating it as "lower IQs" when actually, as the editor above me notes, he came right out and used the word "stupid". To be fair, though, the original phrasing is in need of the word "average" before "IQs". Maybe the best solution is to just use the direct quote, if we are unable to agree on an accurate paraphrasing. --Saucepan 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that he doesn't actually *say* blacks are stupid. He says that blacks have a lower average IQ, that blacks commit more violent crimes per capita, and that stupid people are more violent. The implication is there, but should an encyclopedic entry chase down implications? If Eric wanted to say "blacks are stupid" or "blacks are lazy", let him say it, but don't put those words in his mouth. RussNelson 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of minor change to ESR's claims of having contributed to his first open source project in 1982

No open source license existed in 1982. ESR used to claim that he had contributed to the GNU project as early as 1982, but that claims has been refuted, and Eric has changed the entry at his website to read,

I was one of the original GNU contributors back in the mid-1980s, and I've been at it ever since.

Thus, I've change the text to reflect same. (Personally, I can't find a record of Eric's contributions before 1987 or early 1988, but I'm willing to let the "mid-1980s" claim stand. in no case can the 1982 date stand, because the GNU project didnt' start until at least a year later, and nobody could have contributed before 1985 or so. Gonzopancho 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He may have been talking about early versions (4.1?) of BSD. --69.54.29.23 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"may have been"?

Even ESR doesn't claim this, why do you?

Cripes, BSD 4.1 wasn't an "open source" project. You had to have an AT&T license in order to get it.

Eric's own resume has makes no claim to having contributed to any "open source" project prior to May 1985, and this period included 'Maintainence and extension of the GNU Emacs editor'. The period from May 1983 to June 1985 was at Rabbit Software, and this is where Eric first ran 4.1 BSD, and by his own admission (private communication) the 4.1 BSD experience was new to him.

Eric has claimed that " I wrote the core of what became their console speaker driver on an SVr4 box in 1985." This is not 1982, and he makes no claim for having contributed same directly to BSD. (It got picked up in the 386BSD effort, which didn't start until 1989 .

So no, he did *NOT* contribute to any "open source" project in 1982. The earliest date I can find for any contribution by ESR to ANY "open source" project is 1988. Gonzopancho 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Eric *used to* claim that he had contributed to the GNU project starting in 1982, but that claim was found to be false, so Eric changed his claim to "mid-1980s". I find it too likely that the claim in Misplaced Pages was based on this faulty claim on Eric's "software" page. Eric used to claim he had code in cnews as well , but the cnews authors set that straight

gpsd maintainer?

Does anyone have a source for ESR being the maintainer of gpsd? The best I could find is that he is maintaining the gpsd manpages. I have asked the contributor, to no avail. Jayvdb 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I ignored you, because you're a moron. But since you're a persistent moron, I suppose I must deal with you. Click on the gpsd link. Click on the Berlios link. Click on the "change log" link. Observe gazillions of contributions by ESR. Not finding that link is "The best could find"? Tell me you only pretended to try and I'll apologize for calling you a moron. Otherwise, the facts are the facts. RussNelson 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I was looking for a source that explicitly backed up the claim, but as you are a previous maintainer I am happy to accept your word on it. The search for an explicit source is due to a policy that Misplaced Pages does not accept original research. Perhaps you can point out an email from the lists that discusses a transfer of maintainership, or something similar? It would be great to know when ESR took on this role.

Please remember when contributing to wikipedia that is your duty to find sources to back up any additions you make, when required. That is why I first asked you directly. My best implies all the time that I could spend trying to sources for another persons contributions, at that time.Jayvdb 17:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here at Misplaced Pages there's etiquette to assume good faith. It's useful for a host of reasons, but largely to avoid flame-fests. I have no reason to believe User:Jayvdb was not acting in good faith. Raymond does appear to be the greatest contributor gpsd, it's just not listed anywhere that he's officially the "maintainer" which was what your edit conjectured, nor is the author and maintainer information--or any really useful information--at the gpsd article, yet. There seem to be 4 maintainers, yourself included. --69.54.29.23 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good faith cut both ways. Entries do not need to be doumented to an idiot's standard. Try reading the mailing list achives. Try to succeed, not to fail. RussNelson 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mr. Nelson, none of the four mailing lists are searchable to my knowledge. You must remember that material submitted here needs to be verifiable, and that goes even for individuals with first-person experience with a topic.

Oh. My. God. You are truly pitiful. I don't understand why I am wasting my time with you, but try Clicking ON This Link: If you don't know how to do that, you put your mouse cursor over the link and click on the left button. I know it's hard, but, really, try to spend a few minutes backing up your ignorance with facts. RussNelson 06:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles with connected contributors