Talk:Randal L. Schwartz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
All issues formerly mentioned here have been resolved. (If you disagree, please either fix the article or raise the issue again.)
Contents |
[edit] Usenet post about Star Wars
Some mention should be made here that Schwartz posted what is believed to be the first Usenet article to mention Star Wars in 1982. DLCinMaine 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't the first post to mention Star Wars... it was probably the first post to mention Episode Six (getting the name wrong as the interim "Revenge of the Jedi") - the details are at http://groups.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=timeline.html --Randal L. Schwartz 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merlyn?
Shouldn't the nickname Merlyn be explicitly stated somewhere in the first paragraph? Frankie
[edit] Prison
Didn't he spend 30 days in prison? He was announcing it a lot on Usenet back in the day. 207.188.29.244 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I never spent 30 days in prison. --Randal L. Schwartz 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expungement
Although Schwartz has been legally expunged, shouldn't the information about his history remain? It seems to me quite an important part of computer legal history and it should either be documented on his biography page or referenced by his biography page. — Chris Page 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLP - he has asked for it to be removed, it is legally non-existent, so it shouldn't be here. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am troubled by the concept of removing it entirely. The original case was clearly notable, and the expungement is notable too. I feel that there should be some mention of it, even if it's something like, "Schwartz was involved in a lawsuit filed by the State of Oregon, Oregon v. Schwartz. Schwartz was originally found guilty, but on later review it was determined that the judgment was in error, and his record was expunged." That's neutral and covers the situation. I guess I'm thinking about if other people were curious about Schwartz's status, and came to his Wikipedia bio to find out the latest, there should be some mention of the fact that his name has been cleared. --Elonka 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- First, there was never a lawsuit. Second, nobody found "the judgement in error". This was just time ticking away, pure and simple. --Randal L. Schwartz 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It is not "legally non-existent." It is notable, it is verifiable, so it SHOULD be here, and I am adding it back with a notice about the expungement. 216.144.201.98 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Chris and Elonka that it should be mentioned "somewhere." What do you folks think about spinning it off into a second article, where this article can simply have a {{seealso}}? The case is important to computer history in general as an event, but it is kind of a thing where he got stuck with the short straw; something like this could've happened to any number of consultants. He is notable enough with Perl contributions, etc, to warrant an entry without the case. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Should whether or not Randal got stuck with the short straw be a factor here? That it is a notable event, and verifiable, is enough, isn't it? And while Randal is clearly notable apart from this -- no question there -- this is something he is well-known for. Not having it on his page would be like not having the Lewinsky affair on Bill Clinton's page. It's a big part of his public history, whether he was a victim or not, and removing this from his biography seems exceedingly odd. If there is a policy I don't know about that justifies removing well-known and important events from someone's page just because they make him look bad, please let me know; otherwise, I think it has to stay.
-
- All that said, I wouldn't mind shoving the details off into a separate article. Maybe have this article just say "Schwartz is well-known for his involvement in State of Oregon vs. Randal Schwartz." Doesn't even have to say he was convicted and that it was expunged, I think, so long as that is all made clear on the linked-to page. I am not out to make Randal look bad, and I understand what I think are his concerns, and I agree they are legitimate, but I also don't think erasing this from history is reasonable, even if it is expunged, as it is an important and well-known case. Pudge 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Just FYI, I'm paying attention to the thread, and will be correcting any factual errors, but I'm abstaining from trying to influence the result. I take full responsibility for the legacy I have left behind me, both good and bad. Whatever the WP-community decides to write or not write, separate or merge, is something I must ultimately include in the legacy as well. Thanks. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I second what pudge is saying. It's significant, it's noteworthy, the facts of what happened need to be recorded. I previously tried to address this with the editor that first removed the information, but got nowhere. I'm glad the broader community is taking a look.
- IMO, this should be pretty much addressed the way FORS has chosen to address it, as of today (they explain how things came out, link to the expungement (so should we), etc.). And, to Randal ... personally, the fact that I think you have left a good legacy through all of this is part of why I think the facts should be reported in this encyclopedia, not left out. I think most other folks would tend to view it that way, as well. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
