Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article GNU/Linux naming controversy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 2, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
May 10, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
May 11, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).

unjustified reverts of the edits concerning "Jimmy Wales" opinion[edit]

the two users User:Ahunt and User:Aoidh, have reverted the edits ( and done for adding the information concerning the opinion of Jimmy Wales inside the section "Opinions supporting "GNU/Linux"": such deletion of reliable content violates the WP:NPOV and WP:DISRUPT policies: and thus is lack of constructive edits which can be seen as a POV pushing. (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' personal opinion on the issue, dating from 2008 is not relevant to this article. Lots of people have opinions on it but they are not experts in the field nor have they been quoted in reliable third party sources. In this case, the ref you added was a Wikipedia user talk page page, which is WP:SPS and not a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt: The Jimmy Wales' cited reference is a diff( so it's clear enough that's reliable. The edit ( was reverted because as I said the reference doesn't say that RMS started in 2015 using the term "GNU/Linux": and it's clear that you are trying to push non-reliable informations for justifying some POV. So, when reverting other edits per WP:VAND, you mustn't consider yourself having more weight than others, as you also have vandalized reliable reference behind a personal POV. (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear here, you cannot add quotes to an article without citing a reliable source and a Wikipedia talk page is not a reliable source. Two editors have now removed this as per policy, including WP:SPS, WP:BLP and WP:QUOTE. Your recent edits have also removed text cited to a reliable source which is WP:VANDALISM, for which you have been repeatedly warned. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are several issues with the edit, namely the source used. Jimmy Wales, like most people, has said many things about many topics. If this particular thing is significant, then surely a third-party source can be found that can give weight to the quote? If not, then it isn't as important enough to the article's subject to warrant using that quote. Ignoring the WP:DISRUPT claim, which has no justification whatsoever, reverting the edit is not a violation of WP:NPOV specifically per WP:DUE; just because something can be verified doesn't mean it's relevant enough to mention. Provide a third-party source showing that the quote is significant in any way; that is the bare minimum to even consider including it in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aoidh: All what you have said is still unable to justify your reverts, and it's clear that you are trying to justify some POV instead. (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The reasoning for reverting the edit is valid, you accepting the reasoning is not required. If you are unable to collaborate with other editors and meet them half way, the content your trying to put in the article will not be in the article. I am trying to compromise; if the content has third-party sources showing that it's relevant, I'd be more willing to see it as valid content. Wikipedia is about collaborating and compromising to improve articles; if you don't meet me half way, the quote is not going to be in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aoidh: 3rd parties are optional and not required, as it can't be more reliable than the original source itself which is the diff [1]: Your requested page protection for this article doesn't let you hide your lack of collaborative spirit you have used for protecting your unjustified reverts: you are also involved in a violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:VAND policies, don't forget that.

All is clear now: you and ahunt are involved in a non-honnest conspiracy, with the help of the administrator (and maybe others), against free content related to the "opinions supporting GNU/Linux" section for censoring it (for personal reasons of course), instead of protecting it from vandaism: such pure POV-pushing can be seen also in your and ahunt's software-related contributions history, where you both have been involved in a disruption of such GNU related terms without trying to meet other people half-way: and thus reflects your non-compromising behaviour which is unacceptable: you can see my comment related to this issue on ANI. (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

You're confusing verifiability with relevance. I'm not asking you to show that the quoted words were given, I'm asking to show that it's relevant; that's what WP:NPOV requires. As for your conspiracy theory, I'll let the WP:ANI discussion you started address that. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aoidh: I noticed that you tried to repeat other words from here (from "ability of collaborating correctly with other editors" to "unable to collaborate with other editors") instead of using your own: and that reflects your lack of well-discussing with others.

Don't try also to deem stupid other people by telling them to believe that the editor wrote "edit warring with User:Ahunt" because he is "very aware that he is edit warring" as what you said in your your page protection request: such edit summary syntax is used by many editors to describe that the edit they reverted is for a different user who is edit-warring against them, if you still don't know that ... (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that fact that you interpret your inability to convince other editors that you should be able to add quotes from a Wikipedia talk page to this article is some sort of big conspiracy really means that this conversation has run its course. As noted above if you can find a third party independent source that provides this quote then it can be added, otherwise, by Wikipedia policy it cannot. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt: I think that you got wrong here, adding an opinion of well-known person from a reliable source as an example for some content doesn't violate neutrality, and it's a beneficial contribution. The real big conspirancy is to write false info like what you did: "In May 2015 Stallman began calling Linux-based operating systems "the GNU operating system"" which the reference you cited didn't say, and trying to force such done edit like a lie, with deleting other reliable content. I think that's clear enough, and that you should read your words carefully next-time instead of saying false positives. (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It can be noted that the various IPs took this issue to ANI where an admin termed the IP behavior "not acceptable" and semi-protected the article for a month. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Your edit warring as explained in the noticeboard is also unacceptable, and the administrators needs to take serious action for it rather than semi-protecting it for a month. (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion, but the admin acting on it to your ANI post, labelled your behaviour "not acceptable" and locked the article so you cannot edit it. You can note, as I explained previously, that reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, it's well justified that the edits you reverted are not vandal. I know that it was a disappointment from the part of the admin: but that doesn't prevent that you should be blocked. (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Past tense[edit]

Though the controversy appears to have now metastasised, is it not premature to say that it "was a dispute"? In other words, perhaps, should the scope of the article be limited to GNU/Linux, specifically, or the GNU–Linux naming controversy? Alakzi (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. The scope of the article is specifically about the use of the term "GNU/Linux", which the Softpedia ref cited shows that Stallman is no longer using. To my mind that indicates that this specific controversy is over. Now you could expand the scope of the article to include the use of the name GNU operating system, but that is already another article. Personally I prefer to leave this article as a limited topic about the use of the term "GNU/Linux", call it "case closed" and leave it at that, rather than try to address a moving target. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, does still use GNU/Linux on its website, as seen on its main page and the List of Free GNU/Linux distributions page. I think it should probably take more than this single softpedia piece to change it to the past tense, when all other sources still seem to support it being an active thing. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Since this change seems to be recent and top-down driven, it may take a while for the webmasters of those sites to get them caught up. I am sure there will be some organizational internal debates as to what to say on the websites as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015[edit]

"GNU/Linux was a term that was promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder Richard Stallman up until 2015 when the term was abandoned."

Firstly, the source is not a reliable one. It doesn't even present itself as a reliable source; it's clearly presented as the supposition of one person based on the way a single article by RMS was worded.

Secondly, this claim is directly contradicted by one of the sources given (the one from the GNU Project website), which continues to use the term "GNU/Linux" and does not state anywhere that "GNU/Linux" is "abandoned".

It seems the entire introduction has been edited to reflect this assumed change which doesn't even have a good source behind it. It needs to be reverted to its previous state which didn't assume that the controversy is over, despite clear evidence to the contrary. (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

After I requested this, I realized I could do the edit myself using this account (which I haven't used in years). So I've done it. onpon4 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement about the ridiculous paragraph giving undue weight to Softpedia's article[edit]

I've added several FSF articles, all written since Softpedia's, as sources to show quite clearly that Softpedia's article is patently absurd and not deserving of any mention. This paragraph should be removed. It does not belong here. There was never any evidence to back up the Softpedia writer's claim to begin with, and the FSF and RMS are still very clearly using the term. Mentioning this article is WP:UNDUE. However, when I tried to remove this paragraph, a certain someone reverted my change because "[t]hat doesn't change the press report here". So rather than getting into an edit war with this certain someone, I'm leaving that to someone else. (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)