Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy

How much quotation is too much?

Regarding the question of quotations, I think it's important to settle this issue quickly, so that there's no needless bickering or constant reverts on what does not change the substantial content of the article, and we can get to the more pertinent issue of properly citing arguments and representing all views from NPOV. I personally don't care either way—although in my personal writings, I much prefer to interweave quotes with my own sentences, rather than a block quote, the Wikipedia isn't my personal soap box—and here are arguments I have seen so far:

• for less quote: Thumperward's comment in the article editing history: "re-tag pending discussion; the article was featured four years ago, when standards were much lower, and its FAR (which led to demotion) specifically mentions all the quotations as a negative". (I would very much appreciate a link to the Wikipedia policy regarding discouraging "quote farms". That would certainly provide a guiding principle, and I don't care to read through all of Wikipedia's policy just to find that little bit.)
• for more (or status-quo, before my edits) quote: I see this comment in the above talk page sections: "One thing that you need to realize is that this article has to stay unusually close to quotations, because the topic is so controversial among editors (witness the endless battles on Talk:Linux)," by Steven G. Johnson. If I may add my two cents (in addition to, I believe, Gronky's) that's what references are for. If the claim is controversial, you can use ref tags to reference to the source article, without the necessity of a full quotation of the whole paragraph. Usually, there will be a phrase or a sentence that captures the idea of the whole thing.

Well, that's all I can say, but please, someone settle this issue so this won't have to be debated again for at least a couple years. novakyu (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References are very useful, but this is not just a matter of citing a source for a date or some other such fact, it's a question of strong opinions, and the devil (and strong disagreements) often lies in the details of phrasing. Just quoting a sentence or two avoids a lot of trouble and argument about what exactly has been said, and a dozen quotes hardly turns the article into just a list of quotations ("a quote farm"). (With regards to the formatting of the quotations, that's not really what anyone is arguing about here.) In short, there is a big upside to just using people's actual words instead of substituting our own, and downside seems to be some vague aesthetic criticisms that hardly outweigh the constant edit battles that paraphrasing will lead to. (Not to mention the temptation to "trim" quotations from sources that an editor personally disagrees with, reducing them to an anemic short "summary" that fails to convey the point of view strongly. Again, just sticking with direct quotations for both sides reduces this kind of temptation and the resulting battles.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the template to provide a link to an essay which covers the subject in more detail. I was surprised to find that this wasn't covered by the MoS; I certainly thought it used to be. I'd argue that this is one of those topics which is going to generate edit wars regardless of content, and that direct quotation is the lazy solution. The current article reads not so much as a description as a narrated conversation, and WP's free software articles have too often served as little more than soapboxes for the figureheads of various factions. I don't believe this article will get back to FA without working to increase the content:quote ratio, and I think Novakyu's recent work in this area was positive. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the essay. I see that Stevenj started shortening quotes that could be shortened, and as a point to agree on, according to what we have here so far, I think we can agree to reduce the number of quoteboxes, especially for shorter quotes (as the linked essay argues: "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it"). There is probably one quote paragraph that nicely summarizes/represents the main argument for each side, and that can be left as a quotebox, and the rest can be just left in quotation marks, but otherwise within the paragraph structure of the article—so that we end up with two quoteboxes for the whole article. If nothing else, I think this will at least reduce the impression that this article has too many quotes, and as Stevenj already argued and the linked essay concedes ("[When to use quotations:] dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors"), this article will probably end up having more percentage of quote than average, so anything to help reduce the appearance of having too much quote ought to be good. ;) novakyu (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note that with the quoteboxes we have here, it seems blindingly clear from context that these are not presented as opinions "endorsed" by Wikipedia. The reason to have a quotebox here, or some similar block quotation formatting, is simply the length of the quotes; this is standard typographical style. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Direct quotation may be "a lazy solution" but at least it is a (partial) solution. As for this article serving as a "soapbox for the figureheads of various factions," paraphrasing the quotes accurately would not really change the "soapbox" aspect anyway. The alternative is for it to devolve into a description of the arguments and opinions of random Wikipedia editors, which is much worse. When it comes to questions of unambiguous fact, like the chronology etc., we can just directly describe the facts, but the article already does this. (As the essay you quote explicitly states, it is not an official policy of any sort. And even that article says that the reasons not to quote are "lack of importance, lengthy articles, etc", which is not the case here, or if "the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote" which is also not the case here—say what you like, but to claim that this article is just a list of quotations is a gross exaggeration on its face.)

I agree with Novakyu that inline quotations for very short quotes are better than quote boxes, but shortening the half-dozen central arguments is just an invitation for trouble. Sometimes, laziness is a good thing: the simplest solution is often the best solution. ) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Debian and GNU/Linux

1993 initial Debian announcement doesn't mention GNU/Linux only "Linux" and calls people "Fellow Linuxers" and actually doesn't even mention GNU, yet I see that in 1994 they already were calling it GNU/Linux (or so this article claims), while RMS started to use GNU/Linux after 1996 from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong). So I think: 1. we need reference for Debian "GNU/Linux" in 1994 2. if Debian used GNU/Linux in 1994 then how RMS made his mind only in after 1996, did he take the term from Debian? This needs to be clarified a bit I think. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that we should definitely get the chronology right if we can. Unless we have a specific reference to say that someone "took the term" from someone else, however, we should probably refrain from such speculation. After all, there was a lot of email traffic between these authors that we may not know about, and I also see references on some of the google groups from that time period of "first-hand" discussions with Stallman on this issue [1]: "RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel" (1994).

Using google groups, you can find a number of usages of "GNU/Linux" before 1996. For example, this 1994 post seems to be a carbon copy of some FSF mailing, and uses GNU/Linux, although it's a bit hard to tell since it's not attributed very carefully. Grrr.

Here's a 1994 copy of a posting by Ian Murdock explaining why they switched to GNU/Linux [2]. Unfortunately, it doesn't say when/where the original posting was made, and I haven't been able to find the original, but at least this sets an upper bound (a "few months" before May 1994). (Note, however, that if memory serves the FSF was sponsoring the initial Debian versions in part, and Murdock's posting acknowledges their close relationship with GNU, so it's probably not accurate to characterize Debian's naming choice as independent of GNU or the FSF.)

And here's a use of "GNU/Linux" in 1992: [3] (in one of the replies to the initial Yggdrasil distro announcement). And here's a 1993 usage of "GNU+Linux".

So, it seems like our chronology is quite off right now, and would probably benefit from some further digging before we update it. (Unfortunately, google groups from that time period seems somewhat incomplete...there are a number of threads where it clearly seems to be missing many posts.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, good stuff it looks like Debian switched to the GNU/Linux name in 1994 indeed, then we need to push back the date when RMS/FSF requested that term to be used. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It may have even been late 1993 -- as I said, it's hard to tell from the source I posted when the actual change was made, because Murdock's post is not dated and even that post says that the change was made "several months" earlier. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found an interview with Ian Murdock saying that the change was made in early 1994 after the first Debian manifesto was released, and was in response to a request by Richard Stallman. I've added this and a few other references to the article in order that we can get the chronology (which is, I hope, a fairly non-controversial question of fact based on the public record) straight. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your research, this clarifies the issue. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion on naming convention

In User talk:Thumperward#Re: your project "Refer to Linux consistently", Jimbo offers the following opinion:

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A summary of this opinion, as was added by user Lightedbulb here, is relevant for inclusion in this article, since it directly addresses the stand that Wikipedia takes on the naming controversy. Technobadger (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be relevant to Wikipedia, therefore I suggest including it in discussions about Wikipedia and it's policies, however it's not relevant in this article because Jimbo is not an authority in the field of naming Linux or GNU/Linux, nor is he relevant in Linux or GNU/Linux world therefore his opinion should not be included in the article, what's next include his opinion in articles about Republican and Democrat parties, I'm sure he has opinions about those issues too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this reference. The entry in the article was unsourced, which is why I deleted it. Still, however, I would argue against its inclusion, for two reasons:

• First, while Mr. Wales is certainly a prominent commentator in the free-software world (albeit more on issues of the Internet than on software per se), in the quote you reference he doesn't really give any explanation for his opinion. In the article, we're not trying to record "votes of support" (person X uses Linux, and person Y uses GNU/Linux), we're trying to explain the reasons for using one or the other term, as explained by prominent commentators.
• Second, there is the Wikipedia policy to avoid self-references. Although we can refer neutrally to Wikipedia (obviously, the article Wikipedia must do so!), we have to be especially careful about treatment of Wikipedia discussions themselves as sources for Wikipedia articles. We have to be triply careful about the temptation to treat Wales' opinion as relevant because this is a Wikipedia article.

To me, the first objection is the most important; a mere statement that Mr. Wales considers "GNU/Linux" more "correct" simply doesn't add much to the article. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Please also note that this is totally separate from the question of whether we should take Jimbo's advice and refer to the OS as "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia itself. That "meta" discussion should take place on Talk:Linux or on other Talk/Policy pages, not here, and certainly not in the article itself. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

That's fine. But did you really have to revert it yet again, even when I asked you politely to discuss it here first? I won't revert it a third time. Technobadger (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should the presumption be in favor of keeping your addition? I could just as easily ask, "Did you really have to add it back, after other editors objected and removed it twice?" In this case, the addition as it stood clearly detracted from the article, because it was unreferenced and unsupported by any explanation or context. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also have to comment that's not as much as "avoid self-references" rule, Wikipedia articles or talk pages are simply not reliable sources. Period. But again, to me the important issue here is how relevant are Jimbo's opinions in different issues where he is not an authority. In this case he thinks that the OS should be called "GNU/Linux", so what, what are his GNU or Linux credentials, is he a linguist, how is his opinion relevant to this issue? -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not so clear-cut as that, because there's no question that Wales is an influential and prominent figure in the free-software community, which has been intertwined with free-encyclopedia projects from early on. Nor is it fair to call him only a "linguist," since he has been a driving force in a number of technology startups for many years. (Many computer professionals have little formal training in computer science. e.g. would you describe Steve Jobs as a college dropout with no credentials in operating systems?) On Adrian's side, Wales is not a developer or distributor of the software in question. On the other side, if he were to publish an explanation of his position on GNU/Linux vs. Linux in a reputable outside source, you could reasonably argue that this would be of interest to many readers of this article. After all, we also quote prominent journalists, pundits, etc. However, as matters stand I have to object for the reasons above — let's not waste our time debating hypothetical situations. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Nor is it fair to call him only a "linguist," since he has been a driving force in a number of technology startups for many years. " I didn't call him anything, I asked what are his credentials in determining what's the right name to be used in this case, so I asked if he's involved either in GNU or Linux or if he's a linguist, since he's neither (AFAIK) his opinion has just as much weight as yours or mine, ultimately it's his POV, since this is his baby he might try to impose his POV in some articles, but I'd find it very strange and actually against the principles that he seems to promote. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check what his actual educational background is (it is in finance), and I misread your statement to say that his background was linguistics (as opposed to computers) and therefore he's not an authority on this. (You make a good point that a linguist, in fact, would be a nice person to reference.) To say that he hasn't been involved in GNU or Linux (the operating system, not the kernel) is not entirely true, I think, but I'm not going to argue it here because I don't see that as the main issue here and our conclusion is the same. Nor am I going to argue whether which side is pushing its POV, or what Wikipedia's naming policies would imply about this issue, as that's offtopic for this page. I was surprised too that he had weighed in, however, if only because he comments so rarely on specific disputes in Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see his comment as 1. a impulse for people to seek consensus, and 2. stating his opinion about the matter. I totally agree with point 1, I don't agree with his opinion, however people who jumped immediately to make changes in Linux, Debian, this page and probably many other articles basing their actions on his opinion are doing a disservice to Wikipedia, if word gets out that Wikipedia has to follow Jimbo's opinions it's going to be a pretty bad from PR point of view, that's why I see this issue more important than the fact that quoting an opinion stated somewhere on Wikipedia is not an encouraged practice on Wikipedia. But I agree with you this is a non-issue till we have a reliable source, then we can discuss this issue again. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales didn't provide his rationale behind his opinion. That's why it shouldn't get included in the article. If he declares it was the GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman that convinced him of the GNU POV, this could be notable. --mms (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the best compromise is to mention it in this article and not in the Linux-article. Censoring it here would be very sad and POV. It really feels like some people do everything they can to stop people from knowing Jimmy Wales' opinion. Those people should know that Wikipedia is about knowledge. I will therefore, add it again. What makes it more right to remove it than to add it? --212.247.27.45 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can note that using a Wikipedia article as a reference for an article on Wikipedia is prohibited by policy. Using a talk page as a reference is even less acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Now I have to convince Jimmy to write about it on his weblog. Then I can add it again. :-) --212.247.27.45 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, blogs aren't reliable sources. Guess you're going to have to get the New York Times to write about it. BradV 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a blanket ban on blog entries. If someone who is an expert in a subject matter writes a blog entry about something related to that subject, it's generally okay to quote them in an article about that subject.

For example, people like Mark Shuttleworth, Miguel de Icaza, Alan Cox, Theodore Ts'o are widely-recognised Linux experts, either as contributors to the kernel itself, or to major distributions and software packages -- they would all be suitable people to quote on a topic like the Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming controversy. I'm not convinced that Jimmy Wales falls into this group, though. His contributions to the Linux computing community have been minimal. He's entitled to his opinion, just as we all are, but he's done nothing in particular to demonstrate he's an expert on the subject on this specific area. Anyone who claims that it would be censorship to leave his opinion out of the article is talking nonsense. Warren -talk- 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren: I think you have put that quite well. Anyone can have an opinion on this subject but they shouldn't be quoted unless they meet the policy.

The policy is pretty clear, personal blogs are self-published material and must be used carefully.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

the footnote is quite important and it says:

""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

I believe the overall message is that blog articles (not the comments that readers post after an article) would be acceptable sources provided that are either published by a news organization or similar or if personally published come from an acknowledged expert in the field.

So, yes, if say Mark Shuttleworth publishes an opinion about Linux on his own blog, I would think that would be acceptable to use as a source. The comments readers tag on would not be. Blogs or comments by people who are not acknowledged experts in the field would not be acceptable to use as references in a Wikipedia article. That is not to say these opinions are not valid, just not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sun talking about GNU/Linux

There's an interesting comment by User:Webmink here: Talk:GNewSense#Sun_Microsystems_uses_the_name_GNU.2FLinux_to_refer_to_the_operating_system. (Skip past the initial post and go straight to the end of that thread). User:Webmink, who claims to be Simon Phipps (Sun's Open Source manager) mentions that it's now company policy to use "GNU/Linux" terminology.

Below's what I originally added to the intro, but after a 2nd look, it's too strong. GNU/Linux is more prominent, but there are still mentions of "Linux". Maybe I'll come back and think of a better wording, but if someone else wants to beat me to it, feel free.

"GNU/Linux" is also the term used by Sun Microsystems, itself one of the largested contributors to free software.

.--Gronky (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it fits into the article, unless Sun posts a rationale that we can cite corresponding to one of the arguments in the article (or a new argument?), or unless Sun produces a GNU/Linux distro that we can list along with the other distros. I'm not sure we want to get into a mere poll of all free-software contributors or technology companies in this article...there are just way too many people/companies for this to be useful (or possible). It's much more useful to stick to prominent commentators explaining the reasons why they think people should use one name or the other. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge (which goes so far as my pledge not to edit on work time or resources), Sun's rationale is based on a current drive to foster a good relationship with the FSF, making it primarily political. I can't provide any reliable sources for this, however. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP categories and GNU/Linux

You may be interested to read Talk:Linux#Linux vs GNU/Linux and Wikipedia categories. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a piece of biased shit

It's frequently (and apparently purposefully) mixing up core concepts. A maliciously inserted part - comparing the *size* of all GNU packages installable versus packages in the Linux kernel. The part compared should be the *core* of the system - the packages required to make it run. Which has aplenty of non-gnu alternatives as well. Plus, shouldn't we call it GNU/X/Apache/Linux anyway? 62.106.48.52 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. As for comparisons of the size of the system, different commentators disagree on what constitutes the "core" system, and it is reasonable for the article to reference one of the most widely cited quantitative analyses; if you could suggest a prominent commentator and/or a reputable source that makes a different statistical comparison, that would be more constructive. Also, the passage you are complaining about clearly states that it is talking about a "typical Linux distribution" and that what constitutes the "operating system" is controversial. Regarding the GNU/X/Apache/Linux argument, that argument is already referenced twice in the article (from both sides). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE. As for comparisons of the size of the system, how about we find an expert who ISN'T obviously biased for a change? I mean, I see Stallman and Linus quotes flying about, who are, respectively, head guys of GNU Project and the Linux kernel project. Before that we should avoid including blatant, obvious lies as "facts". 62.106.48.17 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic civility and adult discourse do not prevent anyone from improving Wikipedia, so WP:IGNORE is not relevant here. Also, incivility is unlikely to persuade anyone.

Which "blatant, obvious lies" are you referring to? (The only thing you've pointed to is an accurately reported fact regarding the proportion of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. The relevance of this fact, along with what constitutes an "operating system" per se, is something reasonable people can disagree about, but that doesn't make it a "blatant, obvious lie.") Regarding commentators, do you have any other sources to recommend? We would welcome references to reputable, disinterested commentators on this issue. However, you won't find many editors who agree with you that the comments of both Stallman and Torvalds are not relevant to report in order to give the reader an accurate picture of this controversy, which after all revolves around those two. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am neurologically unable to both communicate efficiently and to be civil. (And it is a real disorder and no I don't feel like being more specific.) Doesn't mean it isn't adult discourse, so quit the constant ad hominem already. This also doesn't revolve around Linus at all - from what I can gather Linus isn't exactly passionately arguing for either side. It revolves around freedom (as defined by Stallman) and common usage. It may not be a "blatant, obvious lie" when we follow grammar exactly, but it is a completely irrelevant fact which is implied to be a relevant fact. Which qualifies as a lie in my books. 62.106.48.17 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having read what you have written here I am having a hard time understanding what you think needs changing in this article, as you tagged: "To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten." Can you be more specific as to what actually needs fixing? - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds

Does this mean the Linux name is actually not free? Or he can sue someone for naming a system Linux? Ufopedia (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, yes, he could theoretically sue somebody for infringing on the trademark. However, going around suing Linux companies is not something he intends to do. Read this article for his statement on his use of his trademark: http://slashdot.org/linux/00/01/19/0828245.shtml I hope that clears things up. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Stallman's pronunciation is the same as the normal pronunciation

From the last section of the article:

Given that Stallman pronounces GNU as /gəˈnuː/

The normal pronunciation of the word GNU is found earlier

Although "GNU/Linux" is often Template:PronEng, "GNU Linux"..

The pronunciation of GNU is the same in both, but it's being presented as though Stallman pronounces GNU differently. This is confusing. Am I missing something? michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Many of the citations in the article violate WP:SPS. 69.196.135.142 (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy self-published sources are allowed, with a number of limitations:

"Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

2. it is not contentious;

3. it is not unduly self-serving;

4. it does not involve claims about third parties;

5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The question is then does the use of these sources meet the policy? - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording of that exception is unclear. I read "about themselves" as meaning it is okay to use a source from person X on the topic of person X, yet here we are not discussing a person but a name. If this is not the case then I think 2,3,4,7 do not apply. 69.196.135.142 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the whole controversy seems to be mostly originate with the GNU organization and its members, I would consider that GNU was really presenting their own arguments, in other words that it was "about themselves" and so these criteria would be applicable. But I do admit is is quite debatable! It would seem unnecessary to find a third party reference to report what they had stated as their position. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So assume you are correct, then 2,3,4,7 do not apply. 69.196.135.142 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say if they are putting forward their own view that all would apply, as the policy states. By "contentious" I would assume that there is no debate or confusion as to the fact that this is their view. The rest seem to be fine and would apply I would think and would allow these sources to be used as long as the article does not rest entirely upon those references, in other words that this article about a conflict of ideas is balanced between the sides. - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me some other sizeable Wikipedia articles where mailing list postings are acceptable sources? 69.196.135.142 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

edit: I think it's never "contentious" that an SPS represents the views of the self-publisher. However, the topic definitely IS contentious; if the title of the article is not enough, see this page: Talk:Linux/Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.135.142 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation section is over the top

As michaelb noted recently on this talk page, Stallman uses normal pronunciation. And while it is worth noting how pronouncing the slash avoids ambiguity, it rises to the level of parody to pollute the paragraph with so much IPA. It only worsens an article already rife with problems.

There are lots of ways to just rewrite the section to make it more concise, more helpful, and less distracting. Would you care to do this work, or do you prefer that I do it? If you prefer that I fix it, please state any concerns that you have about whether I am missing something or might leave something out. Freed42 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Promoted" versus "used" in the intro

Given that this is an explicitly advocative term, the lead should make it clear that the term is promoted by the FSF and not merely "used". I suppose "used and promoted" might be an acceptable compromise? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Having carefully read the cited reference I have to agree. It says:

"Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don't confuse the public by using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it “GNU/Linux”." [4]

The ref makes it very clear - they are directly promoting and asking people to use "GNU/Linux". The current article text which says that the term is "used" by FSF is inaccurate and inconsistent with the reference. This is not a matter for points of view or opinions, the article must conform to the references as required by Wikipedia policy.- Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article text refers to "some people in the free software movement". Such members greatly outnumber those belonging to the FSF. Some people may promote "GNU/Linux", such as the FSF. But how do we know that most users of "GNU/Linux" promote it - or even more - that most uses are for purposes of some kind advocacy? Consideration of common usage, after all, is the very (tenuous) basis for the attempted mass censorship of "GNU/Linux" from Wikipedia in the first place. There are many possible reasons for the use of "GNU/Limux" having nothing to do with advocating something: a simple wish to use more accurate language; using a product name, such as "Debian GNU/Linux"; trying to clarify to a customer the origins of the product that they are buying support for, etc. Of course, as you realize, "use" subsumes "promote".

Put another way, there are many things that are promoted and simply described as used on Wikipedia. Why not change all of those, and why begin here? Should important terms such as "African American" be treated likewise? After all, its Wikipedia entry duly notes that "In the 1980s the term African American was advanced on the model", which, of course, implies "was promoted". Moreover, using the (unsubstantiated) criterion that common usage trumps everything in the case of "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux", should instances of "African American" be censored in favor of the far more ubiquitious "black". Freed42 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue about the "purge" or "accuracy" or whatever then feel free to join the debate in the appropriate place. This isn't it. For now, the point is that given that the inventor of the term (the source used for the comment Ahunt linked) does explicitly promote the term, it seems inappropriate to hide this from the reader. Further, "some in the free software movement" is weaselly. We should be precise where possible. It can quickly be established that those most apt to use the term are advocates for it, and thus should be referred to as such, by name if possible.

The comment about "African American" is just WAX to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would urge editors in this discussion to not lose sight of the Wikipedia standard for inclusion, which is not "truth" or even who has the most persuasive argument, but Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

In this respect, Chris is right, my inclusion of the word "some" is imprecise at best and more likely truly weaselly. Although I think it is better than "most" which the cited ref specifically says is not the case. The statement should say exactly who uses the term "GNU/Linux" and cite a ref to show who uses it. Anything else will be challenged and lead to removal, as it should under policy.

So let me propose this: Let us amend the para to indicate precisely who uses the term and avoid weaselly terms like "most" or "some" unless a ref can be found that shows that this is verifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (PS total disclosure on this issue: I am a verifiability crusader, rather than a supporter of either side in the article subject.)

"Weasel" is just being slapped on here without any thought, if I make the big assumption of good faith. "Some people say X" (therefore X). That's weaselly. "Some people say X" (therefore some people say X). That's not weaselly. If anything, it's a bit redundant, since that fact is what brought about the whole matter in the first place several years ago.Freed42 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that "WAX" is also being used without thought. I actually bothered to see to which page that belonged--it specifically applies to deletion discussions, whether or not to keep an article, i.e., totally impertinent to this discussion. The pattern of argument that I see (not from you) is to just throw stuff out like WAX and weasel and hope that something sticks. It probably will.Freed42 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is frequently used by the community to refer to the use of any of the included arguments within a broader discussion on WP. The rationale provided there (that precedent on unrelated articles does not automatically apply to future discussions) is still a firmly-established rule of the community, and is equally applicable outwith AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is losing focus here. The only issue, as I see it is: "what references do we have that confirms who uses the term "GNU/Linux"."

• If we have a reference that says that it is "most users" then let's put that in.
• If we have a reference that says that it is "some users" then let's put that in.
• If we have a reference that says that it is "58% of users" then let's put that in.
• If we have a reference that says that it is "The Free Software Foundation" then let's put that in.

We must have reliable references, as policy requires those. Right now the cited ref indicates that the FSF uses the term "GNU/Linux" and that they ask "please call it “GNU/Linux”." That sounds like they are "promoting" or "advocating" for the term and not just using it. They also say many users of the system are not aware that it is a GNU/Linux system. That says to me that "many" users do not call it "GNU/Linux". So far that is all we have for reliable refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We need look no further than Wikipedia GNU/Linux distribution to see just some of the distributions that use "GNU/Linux" (others are BLAG, Ututo, Parsix, I could rattle off a bunch more if you insist). Some Fortune 500 companies such as Sun, use "GNU/Linux". The "Free software movement"--which does not include prominent "Linux" promoters such as Torvalds--is already a relatively specific reference population which is associated with the entities that I have just mentioned, hence my usage of it in the article. In place of "free software movement", one might say "some associated with the free software movement", but that does not particularly address your concerns and IMHO is not particularly informative. GNU/Linux distribution puts it in this form "is used by distributions such as foo, bar, baz, etc."

A different tack is to begin with a reminder of what a free software distribution is, which is, after all, the object that these labels are meant to describe. Then we could note that uses of "GNU/Linux" are, indeed, more commonly associated with uses of "distribution" than is the case for "Linux" and "distribution" according to the dominant search engine, Google (61.5% US market share as of Jun08, 79.2% in Europe as of March08): 4,220,000 versus 3,750,000, respectively, according to a search I did today (see [5] and [6], respectively). Thus, I am tempted, for a start, to add this data to the article to complement the data from Distrowatch (an insignificant site compared to Google), to add a qualification to the introduction of Linux distribution, and to ask for verification of who exactly uses "Linux" (other than its proper reference, i.e., the kernel named "Linux").Freed42 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. There is a centralised discussion for this issue, and it's tiring having to continually address points you'rve made which were adequately refuted several months ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the original version of the para - in reading the ref cited this is really the only way of stating who supports "GNU/Linix" that is supported by the ref cited at the present. As indicated above I believe that to say otherwise first requires new refs to be cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings are on the GNU/Linux vs. Linux naming issue, there is overwhelming evidence that the "Linux" term is by far the most widespread. For example, a search on the Factiva news database over the last 10 years finds more than 100 times as many mentions of "Linux" as "GNU/Linux" in press sources. (Yes, some of these mentions are probably for the kernel proper, but it is not credible to suggest that 99% of the "Linux" mentions in the mainstream press are talking exclusively about the kernel.) "Linux" is overhwhelmingly used in mainstream press sources — Eweek has a "Linux Watch" section covering the OS. [7]; Linux Journal ... um, enough said; Byte magazine has "Linux line" and "Serving with Linux" columns on the OS; Dr. Dobb's Journal has a Linux/Open-Source section [8]; The New York Times has a "Linux (Computer Operating System)" topic [9]l Ars Technica has a Linux.Ars section [10]. These are just a random selection of the first few places I tried. Unless someone can name a few mainstream press sources that consistently prefer "GNU/Linux" to "Linux", or any database search where the terms are even close in popularity, I don't see how the issue could even be in question. This is like arguing over whether there is more water in my bathtub than in the Pacific ocean since we don't have a published source comparing the two. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream press" is an obvious, straightforward context for "far more/most ...". How about if we mention those claims in that context? Other contexts are more problematic and often (by definition since they are not as mainstream as the mainstream press) less interesting to an average person. Freed42 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)