Talk:Linux Mint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Linux (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is Java proprietary?[edit]

This article puts Java along with adobe flash in the category of proprietary languages(on line2).But article on java language says its license is GPL.


There should be a mention of LMDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


"Various programs (such as remastersys and Reconstructor) exist to produce customised remasters of Debian/Ubuntu and probably can be used to produce modified versions of Linux Mint Live CDs." Probably? I don't think the section should be there unless it is asserted that it can - not exactly encyclopedic as it is. Scatterkeir (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I do not doubt the editor's ability to remaster an iso but we need a source on this one. Mediator Scientiae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this part should be removed completely. This page is about Linux Mint and not about remastering software.
Yes, remastering should be completely removed. This page is not closely related to remastering. Wei2912 (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal blog links[edit]

Both the recently linked "references" added by user are just personal blogs, imho, and should be removed. They are both full of adverts, both start with the same text "The Mint Team is doing all the work ... all we need to do is install the final version of Mint-8 and have fun on it." and the one links directly to the one. Both added by the same IP address in the last two days, and neither add too much information that isn't otherwise available from more notable sources. Thoughts, anyone? Thrapper (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the same IP has added links to the same blogs on other articles, including Linux (diff, diff), Nokia N900 (diff, diff) and Safari (diff) Thrapper (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither link seemed to add anything in my opinion, and not particularly related to the text from which they were referred, so I removed them. Thrapper (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, Thrapper. Good detective work. Mediator Scientiae (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the old pic?[edit]

Any reason for having that picture of version 2.2 there? I suppose it should be removed. --Stormwatch (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, doesn't seem particularly relevant any more! :) Thrapper (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did remove the pic but Clementlefebvre reverted my edit and put the picture back :( Thrapper (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my intention, it must have been a side-effect of another reversion? Either way, feel free to remove it, 2.2 is quite old indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementlefebvre (talkcontribs) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to enter an edit war with you, Clementlefebvre. I already removed this 2.2 pic, and you reverted my edit. I already gave you the link to show you the changes you made with your edit (if you want the link again, here it is: ) so it should be easy for you to check what you changed and see whether any side-effects occurred or not. Thrapper (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "either way, feel free to remove it". -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Let's keep ridiculous wiki politics out of this shall we? Old Marcus (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to change the caption to reflect that that is the Cinnamon version of Linux Mint 13, but I got reverted. Can anyone do it for me? (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already changed. :) Wei2912 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


User:Honormuk, could you please stop editing the introduction to delete uncontroversial, encyclopedic information? --Andrensath (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing improvements to the page by correcting mistakes. I'm also using the article about Ubuntu as a template for Linux Mint. I rephrased the first sentence to match the wording on the Ubuntu article. The deleted references are not directly related to the content. The sentence about the integrated codecs is not correct and so therefore should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honormuk (talkcontribs) 11:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see what relevance the wording of Ubuntu (operating system) has to this article. Also, could you clarify exactly how the deleted references are 'not directly related to the content', and what is incorrect about the sentence about the integrated codecs? (As a side note, you can sign your edits to talk pages by inserting the tilde (~) character four times. Please do so, as this cuts down on the chances of edit conflicts.) --Andrensath (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll sign my comments. Honormuk (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The integrated codecs are not present in all editions of Linux Mint, it's incorrect to say so. Honormuk (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The Ubuntu article is better written than this one. I see it as an improvement to word things the way they're worded on the Ubuntu article. Honormuk (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The first ref points to the new features in Linux Mint 7... nothing to do with the introduction. The second ref points to a website called where one can read a reproduction of the Linux Mint 8 release announcement... again, nothing to do with the introduction.
As a further note, it's nearly 23:30 here, and I'm going to bed. Please refrain from edits without consensus in my absence. --Andrensath (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Your absence is completely irrelevant. I hope we won't hear what you're having for breakfast when you get up... stop reverting changes over and over and if you're interested in this page, try to contribute to it instead. It's poorly written and it's missing a lot of information. If you've got time to spare around this article that's what you should be focused on. Honormuk (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent because I can't sleep) I don't actually eat breakfast. Thank you for clarifying, however. I'm going to work up an introduction that mixes both your version and the one I have been reverting to per WP:BRD, and will insert a proposed version of that in a subsequent indentation for comment. --Andrensath (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proposed version. Please feel free to comment on it: <quote>Linux Mint is a personal computer operating system, based on (and compatible with) the Ubuntu distribution. It is recognized for being an user-friendly Linux distribution, particularly for users with no previous experience in Linux.

Linux Mint provides an up-to-date, stable operating system for the average user, with a strong focus on usability and ease of installation. It is available for download in the form of ISO images, which can be used to create Live CDs or Live USBs.</quote> --Andrensath (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good but it's step down from what we currently have. Let me explain. The current introduction is an adapted version of the introduction written for Ubuntu. The reader shouldn't be expected to know much about Linux so it's important to mention the licensing, the funding and general considerations about the operating system more than details such as the installation media (though this would deserve to be added as well, not only here but on both the Linux Mint and Ubuntu articles). I think the people who contributed this introduction to Ubuntu captured this very well. From a style point of view I think their introduction is slightly better, for the following reasons:
  • They emphasize the fact that Ubuntu is an operating system more so than a GNU/Linux distribution. It's both of course, but they introduce the notion of distribution through Debian and later on in the article and that makes it easier to understand to most readers.
  • They use the term "computer" which commonly refers to "PC" or "personal computer" (the latter being rarely used).
  • In the proposed introduction "(and compatible with)" breaks the rhythm of the sentence and makes things harder to understand. Although it's an accurate and correct statement, the level of compatibility between the two systems is described in detail within the article itself and doesn't necessarily need to appear in the introduction. Linux Mint is something people use on their PC, that's the main aspect of it. Its compatibility with what it's based on is quite technical.
  • In the proposed introduction there are a few repetitions on "user" and "distribution".

Honormuk (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the version currently used, there are only three changes I'd make, all minor: 'computer Operating system to 'computer operating system', 'stable operating system' to 'stable operating system', and 'many software packages' to 'many software packages'. What do you think? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
All good points. "Operating systems" appears twice so it's not a problem linking to it in the second occurrence. Although "computer" commonly refers to PCs it's technically inaccurate so a link is welcome here. Finally, "software package" definitely needs a link, very few people are familiar with this concept.Honormuk (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ubuntu" or "the Ubuntu (GNU/)Linux distribution"[edit]

When it comes to mentioning Ubuntu in the introduction: The Ubuntu article refers to "Debian" as "The Debian GNU/Linux distribution", yet in its "Features" section it refers to "Windows" as "Microsoft Windows", not as "the Microsoft Windows operating system". Of course, Windows is more famous than Debian or Ubuntu but that lacks coherence. The keyword also links to the Debian wikipedia article so I guess it should just refer to it as "Debian". In the case of the Linux Mint article, this is even more noticeable, since "Linux" already appears in the name of the distribution itself. Articles on Wikipedia seem to favor "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" so that's another reason to modify the introduction in the Ubuntu article. Consequently I've changed "based on the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution" to "based on Ubuntu". I didn't change the Ubuntu article (I'm already quite busy with this one). Honormuk (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. 'GNU/Linux' might be more technically correct, but I don't think I've ever seen somebody actually use it in conversation. On the 'Microsoft Windows' !'the Microsoft Windows operating system', best guess is that that's because of the potential for confusion as to precisely *which* 'Microsoft Windows' is being referred to, as I can think of ten entirely separate iterations just off the top of my head. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New sections and added info[edit]

I've added quite a lot of content to the article, all of which I know is 100% correct, but with very few references. I'm quite new to editing things on Wikipedia so bear with me and don't hesitate to discuss unreferenced content here. I'll provide any ref that you think is missing. I'm also about to rewrite the tools section, part of it is incorrect and outdated. Don't hesitate to question my changes here, I'll be happy to bring justifications if needed. Honormuk (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a few refs but there are still a lot of unref'd info. I'll add more later on. Honormuk (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While updating the Mint software section I added up to date info but I also removed references to obsolete software (such as mintassistant, mintconfig..etc.). I'm planning to create a page for the software specific to Linux Mint and I'll add an "Obsolete" section there. This will allow us to get more in depth with these applications and to look at the obsolete ones from a more historical point of view, detailing what they brought at the time of their release and putting them in context. I'm also planning to add info about the new community website and the soon-to-be obsolete software portal. Again, this will be easier with a dedicated page as information about obsolete technologies is interesting for an in-depth reader but not something everybody might be interested in. There's plenty of info missing on the new Mint releases articles though, so I'll probably update that first. Honormuk (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


I've moved all sections *prior* to 'Palestine - Israel issue', and two following sections, 'Info boxes release question' and 'Debian based distro', to Archive 1 to cut down on page size. Once the WP:3O process on the controversy is finished, I'd suggest moving all *four* sections related to it to a topic archive, as they seem the biggest chunks of the talk page to me. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good move. Although, whichever solution is chosen between adding the controversial section or not, I don't think it will put an end to it. Soon or later someone will add it again or delete it again and the discussion will start where it was left off. I've got a solution for this but it requires a lot of work. It consists of listing all notable historical events related to the distribution and making an article out of it. This would bring a nice compromise as the political controversy would then have a place where it could reported without standing out among items which constitute the primary description of Linux Mint. Among other events we could also mention the death of Mats Geier, which is missing in the current article and which is, in a similar way, isn't something that would be part of summarizing what Linux Mint is, but definitely among interesting points for an in-depth reader who wants to know more about the history of the project. I can get to that later on. I'm planning to add more info to the releases article first, then I'll add more info to the development section and make it into its own article and then I can start listing historical events. I'm pretty sure we can reach a wide consensus with this solution. Honormuk (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That idea works for me. I can start working on the [[History of Linux Mint]] article, if you're willing and able to provide any refs you've collected? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Could we have a "Timeline and Historical events" section placed between "Popularity" and "Comparison with Ubuntu" with a paragraph giving some general stats about the project since its creation in 2006 and a link to a detailed timeline and list of historical events article? There's a few things to consider:
  • The location of that section, in my opinion: It relates to the distribution itself, and as such should be placed before the comparison with Ubuntu. It's targeted at in-depth readers and relates to the past, and therefore should appear after what relates to the present state of the distribution.
  • Draft articles. You probably know the answer to my question. I need a day or so to collect the information related to the history of Linux Mint. Can we create a stub article in the meantime or should we wait until the content is ready? What is the policy of Wikipedia on small articles? I was under the impression that they were deleted automatically.

Honormuk (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Work-in-progress articles are generally fine, as long as they're properly identified as such. I'd probably just reuse the {{ActiveDiscuss}} template from the top of this page, and if someone proposes speedy deletion we can just insert {{hangon}} to let them know we're working on improving it to being a worthwhile article in its own right. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I started working on it here Honormuk (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let me commend you both for trying to work something out on this that will satisfy everyone. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, let me warn everyone involved that there's plainly an edit war still going on over whether or not the political material should remain in the article in the interim. Let me remind you that WP:3RR says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." If the edit war continues, someone is going to page–protect this article or some editors are going to get blocked, or both. That would be a shame now that collegiality is now working. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a "See Also" section following what's done on the Ubuntu and Windows article. On the Windows article in particular it divides the links between general articles related to operating systems and "further readings" which is perfect to link to the new Linux Mint timeline article. It makes the main article more scalable also as we can now really go in-depth, for instance we could think of a list of Linux Mint reviews. In the timeline article I started adding content following the chronology of the newsletter (because it's full of information and easy to follow). I'll add more content and use other sources at a later stage. I also jumped to May 2009 to mention the political controversy, because it was already written thus easy to add and in an effort to put a stop to the ongoing edit war which is taking place on the main article. The present article looks a bit weird as a consequence, jumping straight to Feb 2007 (creation of the newsletter) and then jumping straight to May 2009 (political controversy), but that's only a temporary problem and it will get better as more content is added to it. Honormuk (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Other controversial bits[edit]

Apart from that one (now archived) Mint does have some other controversial aspects. I am thinking about the inclusion of the "Mint Search Enhancer" Firefox add-on, which cannot be uninstalled via the add-on manager, and which apparently exists for the distro to make money by altering Google search requests. See for example, Lovingboth (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently have a mint install, but I strongly suspect the "uninstallable" firefox add-on is only as 'uninstallable' as Ubuntu's Firefox Modifications, or (in the Windows world) Microsoft's .NET framework firefox add-on, both of which were were the subject of controversy by people who didn't realise that you have to be running Firefox as root/administrator to uninstall system-wide add-ins. -- simxp (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
True, but there are side-effects to running FF as root (various key files get chowned to root and unless you know to change them back, you end up losing old sessions / add-on setups etc.) Given the audience Mint is aimed at, 'let them run as root' is not really good enough, particularly as it's clear that the team do not want you to uninstall it. Lovingboth (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


The section on the different editions, namely KDE Software Compilation / Xfce / LXDE / Fluxbox / Debian based is not very helpful for the uninitiated - maybe someone could explain in a few words which editions are useful for which types of user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


What about his comment on israel?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 03:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Is that even related to the article's subject? – Adrian Willenbücher (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
CTRL+F, "Israel". -- (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not related at all, these materials should be removed completely. It was simply his personal thoughts on the Linux Mint Blog.Wei2912 (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Legality Issues[edit]

I think a good, well referenced section on the legality of Linux Mint would do much for this article. If you read any comment section on any news article about Linux Mint, it always devolves into a discussion about the legality. I would write it myself but am confused myself by all the disinformation out there. (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lead rewrite"[edit]

The article has had the "lead rewrite" template at the top now since August, but there's no discussion here about what might need to be re-written. The intro looks ok from what I can tell, so I'm gonna go ahead and be bold and remove the template. If anyone has a problem with that, you can go ahead and put it back in, but please discuss here what sort of re-writing you think needs to be done, since it doesn't do anyone any good to just have that template sitting around there for months!... -Helvetica (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Open source[edit]

Since Mint includes plenty of non-open source software, I believe it cannot be called an open-source distribution. Maybe a mixed-source distribution, thought that's not a frequently used term. (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Mint, like most other GNU/Linux distros, uses a Linux kernel with some "binary blobs." Also, the standard version of Mint comes with some non-free codecs pre-installed. But if you look at Mint as a whole, it's overwhelmingly FOSS - both at the system level - Linux kernel, GNU tools,, GNOME, etc, and the application software that it comes with - Firefox, Thunderbird, Open, GIMP, Pidgin, Gedit, etc, etc, etc! -Helvetica (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe every closed operating system has at least a couple open source components, and vice versa. I agree with Hevetica- Mint's mostly open source. And same w/ most distros! iPadFanboy 05:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPadFanboy (talkcontribs)

System Requirements[edit]

Each version, as far back as Mint 4.0 "Daryna" or even older, should have minimum and recommended hardware requirements in the table. That would make it possible to better support older hardware. I've attempted to find this info, but as yet find only anecdotal reports. Best regards to all who work so hard to support Linux Mint. Banjoboye (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Banshee income controversy?[edit] (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No longer. Its split to 50% now.
From Linux Mint 12 onwards, 50% of all profits generated from the Amazon MP3 store will be given to the Banshee :project. The remaining 50% will go towards ‘growing’ Linux Mint.
As from Wei2912 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


One citation of one website from a non-American newspaper does not constitute wide international press coverage. Seriously, are we calling one article international reception? (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that to be 'international' it has to be non-American? CodeCat (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know here that Linux Mint does not modify its user-agent since Firefox 4 (since Mozilla stopped making this configurable basically). In other words, when you see stats based on user agents (wikimedia stats for instance), the only Mint users you see are the ones running old versions (Mint 10 and earlier releases) and who did not upgrade their browser or switched to another browser. I'm not saying Wikipedia is a reliable source here, but be careful.. these user-agents stats are completely wrong. Most distributions, and Mint included, stopped modifying their user-agent with version 4 of Firefox. Ubuntu also stopped for a while. Nowadays, Mint users default to an Ubuntu user-agent (Canonical changes that in the source code itself). I'm running Mint 14 here and my user agent is Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0. I didn't think that deserved to be in the article, but I thought I'd let people know here in the talk page, since we're talking about reception and some of the blogs comparing Mint to Ubuntu use Distrowatch and Wikimedia as sources. As far as I know there are no reliable stats available out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased usage of Distrowatch statistics[edit]

Distrowatch itself states that the hit counts do not correlate with usage. Using the hit counts, without reliable secondary sources to give them notability, is undue.

And keeping those undue "statistics", but then deleting the explanation from the same website, pertaining to the very statistics themselves, defies logic. Clearly, DistroWatch's own comment on the relevance of the hit counts is at least as due as the hit counts themselves. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And this is exactly what the article says, there's nothing unclear here, and it makes no sense to replace a section of originally worded content with a fair use quotation, even if it is a minimal one. - SudoGhost 04:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
False. The article only says that the hit count is "not a reliable stick", while the comment from DistroWatch itself is far stronger - that is does not even correlate with usage or quality and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions - which is exactly what the article is doing! Suppressing that quote (which says that what this Wiki article does, should not be done) is extremely misleading. -- Jorge (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, the title of the section must be changed from "reception" to "Hit count on DistroWatch". -- Jorge (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
To say something is "False." it must actually be false. Just saying the word false doesn't somehow make it untrue in and of itself. The article "only says" the reliable stick part if that's all you read. If, however, you read the entire thing, you'll note that "it only measures hits on the web site of the various Linux distributions". It spells out what the DistroWatch information means, and nowhere does it say or imply that it "measures the market share of distributions". Where you got this is unclear, but the article does not assert this. It seems the issue here isn't DistroWatch and how it is worded; you're edits make it clear that you have some issue with Linux Mint having a higher number than Ubuntu on DistroWatch. When the removal of what information was reverted, you added "Also, the combined hit count of the several Ubuntu editions (Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubuntu Studio and Mythbuntu) surpasses Linux Mint." Your editing focus isn't on the information in itself, but rather downplaying (or outright removing) any information about Linux Mint having a higher count than Ubuntu on that website. - SudoGhost 00:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The current wording omits the information that the hit counts fail to correlate with usage. This is an unacceptable omission. For what reason should we suppress the sentence "Distrowatch itself states that the page hit count does not correlate with usage"? This information is, very clearly, at least as due as the hit counts themselves. What Wikipedia rule/pillar do you think is broken by the inclusion of that sentence?
Regarding where I got the idea that the article uses the hit count as a measurement of usage share - the section is named "Reception"! That strongly implies that the hit count correlates with the distro's reception. Therefore the section title must be changed. Regarding your personal attacks - accusations of bad faith - I refuse to answer that because I don't want to fight that low. But I do warn you that this is against Wikipedia rules.
My proposal is to rename the section to "page hit count on Distrowatch" and change the text to

As of the second half of 2011, Linux Mint's page has the most hits among Linux distribution pages in DistroWatch, surpassing Ubuntu - but DistroWatch itself states that the page hit count does not correlate with usage or quality.

That section should also be moved to the end, since it is the least relevant; in fact, hit count on Distrowatch is just a piece of trivia.
Clearly, these changes would make the article more accurate. -- Jorge (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It also doesn't say that it does measure usage, it quite clearly says it "only measures hits on the web site", there is no part of that is unclear or confusing, and nothing there could possibly be construed as meaning distro usage. Your edits are what they are, but there are no accusations of bad faith there; accusing someone of personal attacks without evidence of such is itself a personal attack, and I'd ask you to stop accusing me of "your personal attacks" like that.
As for the title, it is a reception section, and needs to be expanded, not removed or renamed to an awkward "DistroWatch" header, that would place undue emphasis on the section. The template makes the need for expansion clear as well, and expanding the section with actual reception would remove any undue emphasis placed in the wording. If you're interested in fixing any WP:UNDUE issues, why don't you look for references for the reception of the article's subject? - SudoGhost 02:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You said of me "Your editing focus isn't on the information in itself, but rather downplaying (or outright removing) any information about Linux Mint having a higher count than Ubuntu on that website." That looks a lot like an assumption of bad faith. And, how to you justify including in the Reception section an information that we have no reason to associate with reception? As for why I don't include sources of Linux Mint reception, that is because I am not aware of any. And, what is the reason to suppress the words "DistroWatch itself states that the page hit count does not correlate with usage or quality."? -- Jorge (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If it "looks a lot like an assumption of bad faith", that's not an issue of bad faith, but of you failing to assume the assumption of good-faith. Also, as for the wording of DistroWatch, it is WP:UNDUE. That information would belong on the DistroWatch article, not each and every article the word DistroWatch is mentioned, although I notice you've only had an issue with anything pertaining to DistroWatch on the two articles where Linux Mint is said to have a higher count than Ubuntu. The article says that the data "only measures hits on the web site", that's as clear and simple as humanly possible, and addresses everything you've mentioned. - SudoGhost 02:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You failed to convincingly address my points. I will ask for mediation. -- Jorge (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
And you've failed to "convincingly" give a single reason for your edits, which is why they were reverted. Your points above are creating issues that don't exist ("it only measures hits on the web site" somehow could be confused for "market share or usage" of distros? Are you serious???). Given that the only constant in your edits are removing any mention of or downplaying any mention of Linux Mint having a higher hit on a website than Ubuntu (on no other article do you have this issue with DistroWatch, only the two that mention this little fact), you're going to need a consensus for your edits first. - SudoGhost 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add your side of the story, in an organized way, to the section below. I plan to only wait until Saturday. -- Jorge (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you establish a consensus for these contentious changes, they won't be in the article. How long you plan to wait is irrelevant. Your points below were already addressed (even with you refactoring your comment after the fact), and you're creating issues that don't exist and assuming things that aren't even implied, much less stated. - SudoGhost 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely irrelevant. Only reliable sources must be given in wikipedia. DistroWatch is not a reliable form of data at all, it only shows how many people are interested in it.Wei2912 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Good thing there are reliable sources in the article giving it relevance then. - SudoGhost 09:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering why you reverted my changes. As we've been discussing about, Distrowatch IS an unreliable source of information. Yes, it is not up to me to decide, but haven't we agreed on this point here? Also, if it is an unreliable source, why include it here? Wei2912 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Multiple reasons. DistroWatch isn't being used as a reliable source, so the argument that DistroWatch is an unreliable source is irrelevant (however I disagree about the unreliability; why would DistroWatch be an unreliable source for page ranks on DistroWatch?) References such as PCWorld are being used, not DistroWatch, and those are reliable sources. They give the section WP:WEIGHT, not DistroWatch. - SudoGhost 05:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary of conflict about unreliability of DistroWatch hit counters[edit]

Currently, under the section Linux_Mint#Reception, we have the text

{{Undue-section|date=June 2012}} As of 2012, Linux Mint's page on [[DistroWatch]] is the most accessed page among Linux distribution pages there, surpassing Ubuntu. <ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> DistroWatch is not a reliable measuring stick to use for overall Linux distribution share, however, as it only measures hits on the web site of the various Linux distributions.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Linux Distributions - Facts and Figures||accessdate=09 November 2011}}</ref>

I object to that text and to its placement in a section named "Reception". Distrowatch itself states that

The DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking statistics are a light-hearted way of measuring the popularity of Linux distributions and other free operating systems among the visitors of this website. They correlate neither to usage nor to quality and should not be used to measure the market share of distributions. They simply show the number of times a distribution page on was accessed each day, nothing more.

My points are

  1. Measuring the market share of a Linux distro by counting how many times a particular link is clicked on a particular website is very lousy, and clearly vulnerable to gambling by fanboys.
  2. DistroWatch itself states explicitly that the hit counters _do not even correlate_ with usage.
  3. The presence of the hit counters on a section named "Reception" clearly, and erroneously, implies that they are relevant to Linux Mint's reception.
  4. The text does say that the hit counters are an unreliable measurement, and that they only measure how many times a DistroWatch's page is accessed. However, this wording - and the fact that it is in a section named "Reception" - does leave the reader with an idea that the hit counters are relevant to a distro's popularity, even if they have a big margin of error. This is not what DistroWatch itself says - DistroWatch says that the hit counters do not even correlate with popularity, and should not be used to measure market share.

My proposal is:
1. Change the text to

As of 2012, Linux Mint's page on DistroWatch is the most accessed page among Linux distribution pages there, surpassing Ubuntu.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> But DistroWatch says that its hit counters do not correlate with the usage or quality of a Linux Distribution and should not be used to measure market share.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Linux Distributions - Facts and Figures||accessdate=17 June 2012}}</ref> <ref> {{cite web|url=|title=Distribution "popularity"|date=2011-12-07|accessdate=2012-06-17|first=Jake|last=edge}} </ref> <ref> {{cite web|url=|title=A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint|date=2012-02-10|accessdate=2012-06-17|first=Terry|last=Relph-Knight|publisher=ZDNet UK}}</ref>

§1.1. The sentence "its hit counters do not correlate with the usage or quality of a Linux Distribution." is, clearly, at least as relevant and due as the hit counters themselves, and we have a very reliable secondary source ( to establish its notability; suppressing it is unjustifiable and makes the article inaccurate.
2. Move the text to either the Introduction or the Linux_Mint#History and development process section, since it is misleading to leave the text in a section named "Reception".
-- Jorge (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't in any way imply anything you've said. It doesn't say or imply anything about market share, and specifically says it's only measures page hits on that website. None of your points warrant the edits, and the reception issue can be solved by expanding the reception section. I've added a couple of secondary sources, which solves that issue as well. - SudoGhost 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Since you've since refactored the above, it's still creating issues which don't exist:
(1) That isn't what the article says. Nothing about market share is said anywhere in the section, stop arguing against something that isn't there. As for the use of DistroWatch in the article, that isn't up to you, reliable sources use it and comment on it, as per the sources in the article.
(2) The article doesn't say or imply this anything about usage, and says quite the opposite. You're creating an issue that doesn't exist.
(3) The reliable sources listed in the section make it relevant, and before you removed the tag, there was a very relevant "expand" tag there. The reception of the article needs to be expanded, not removed.
(4) Same as 1 and 2 above. You're creating an issue that doesn't exist by saying that "it only measures hits on the web site somehow "leaves the reader with an idea" of something that isn't in any way suggested or implied.
Unless you can explain why the changes need to be made by addressing what's actually in the article, you're creating issues that don't exist. - SudoGhost 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
My argumentation still implies that the sentence "But DistroWatch says that its hit counters do not correlate with the usage or quality of a Linux Distribution and should not be used to measure market share.", which is supported both by primary and reliable secnodary sources, should be included. I have requested third opinion. See Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements --Jorge (talk)

Third opinion[edit]

The wording of the disclaimer as proposed is very awkward, with a caveat to the statement longer than the statement itself. The sentence as it is only discusses DistroWatch hits as DistroWatch hits, and does not claim that this means Mint is more popular in actual use than Ubuntu, nor does it extrapolate anything else from the DistroWatch results. Since the sentence does not claim the results mean anything that DistroWatch cautions not to take the results as, there is no need for a long, awkward disclaimer. I do not see the need for any caveat or refutation to a claim that isn't even made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A last proposal[edit]

How about

As of 2012, Linux Mint's page on DistroWatch is the most accessed page among Linux distribution pages there, surpassing Ubuntu.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> DistroWatch does not measure overall market share, however, as it only measures hits on the page of the various Linux distributions.<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Linux Distributions - Facts and Figures||accessdate=09 November 2011}}</ref><ref> {{cite web|url=|title=Distribution "popularity"|date=2011-12-07|accessdate=2012-06-17|first=Jake|last=edge}} </ref> <ref> {{cite web|url=|title=A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint|date=2012-02-10|accessdate=2012-06-17|first=Terry|last=Relph-Knight|publisher=ZDNet UK}}</ref>

-- Jorge (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That wording is more awkward than what's currently there. The current wording says nothing about, nor gives any indication that it is about market share. - SudoGhost 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. -- Jorge (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

section unclear[edit]

"System requirements

As of Linux Mint 12, both Intel x86 and AMD64 architectures are supported."

What this should say is is that Mint has been supporting Intel 64-bit since version ( 8 ? ) as x86 in and of itself does not convey that 64-bit is supported simply by adding "and AMD64"


All editions of Linux Mint are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit."

This section is worse for not being factual and being utterly ambiguous. It may mean "current editions" and thinks to imply that with "available" when in fact old editions likely remain "available".

G. Robert Shiplett 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LXDE discontinued[edit]


Edit by Clem: Unfortunately no. We had to discontinue the LXDE and Fluxbox editions. We were only partially supporting them (in 32-bit), XFCE support was lacking and we wanted more time within the release cycle to focus on development. I really enjoyed these editions as well but we just don’t have the resources to support them at the moment.

-Wiki4td (talk)

Recent edits[edit]

I made a bunch of edits, adding references, conserving space used in a section with a table, and removing outdated and redunant information.

If you wish to revert some edits, please pay careful attention to what you are undoing, as I made multiple beneficial changes. Thanks. Wiki4td (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Israel Controversy Discussion[edit]

Well, it looks like this controversy (about Israel) has returned. As one of the main participants in the original (now archived) debate over whether to include this information, I feel it should be removed. It's done and over with. I see no reason to dredge it back up. Comments? Jim Rogers10 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section considering that as it stood, it was historical. As the position was revoked a few days after, it shouldn't have had a significant long-term impact, and we have nothing to suggest it had anyway. --Chealer (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant, historical, and important. It has come up again and again over the years (see the references for examples). Most likely, the only reason it is being deleted is to hide Linux Mint's founder's shameful indiscretion from the public. Furthermore, the section as it stands is completely neutral in tone, factual, and well referenced. The only way for Linux Mint to move past this issue is to confront it openly instead of trying to dishonestly erase the past. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It only comes up again and again because people like you keep adding it to articles... CodeCat (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the references like I suggested you will see that Lefebvre himself addressed the issue in response to a comment as recently as June 8, 2012. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the reference-- it was Clem apologizing (again) that it ever happened after someone else dredged it up. Look, I was the main one wanting to include this incident when it originally happened (see archived talk), but now even I agree that this is over. Clem has stated (more than once) that he was wrong and apologized (more than once) for ever bringing it up. If he was still maintaining his position you might have a point, and at the time I argued that the incident *might* need to be included for historical purposes (I wasn't 100% sure of this at the time). But with hindsight I think one could conclude that this whole thing was basically a brief error that happened quite a while ago and was fully reversed with no lasting implications for Mint. I say it's well past time to put an end to this issue and stop bringing it up.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about whether or not Clem changed his mind. It is about the truth and about the factual history of what occurred. The incident happened, it is a big deal, it belongs on Wikipedia. Give me one good reason why the truth should not be written down in Wikipedia for the world to see. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for starters. A couple of wordpress blogs doesn't make this a notable thing, and it's certainly not notable enough to dedicate an entire section to it with that much prose. - SudoGhost 09:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The references include much more than WordPress blogs, such as ExtremeTech and TechSpot. Further, I don't think one should judge a book by its cover as you do when you dismiss all WordPress blogs. In my opinion, the section as it stands is relatively small and could be expanded to include much more detail. It is also my opinion that the section is very notable and worthy of prominent attention. The fact that it has generated such passionate discussion and editing is a testament to its importance. I believe that your notability argument is an insincere attempt to hide the truth and erase inconvenient history rather than an actual concern about notability. Once again, I challenge anyone to make a legitimate argument about why this significant information should not be included in Wikipedia. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wordpress blogs are more often than not worthless as sources. If this is the TechSpot reference you're talking about, then I'm not seeing anything in there that would even come close to supporting anything relevant in that section. "The incident happened", yes but merely existing is an insufficient reason. What you unfortunately believe about my motives is irrelevant and inaccurate; the section is WP:UNDUE and does not belong in the article, and a few upset individuals making a mountain out of a molehill won't change that. You can claim that it is an "insincere and illegitimate argument" all you'd like, but pretending the reasoning doesn't exist will not help you, and will not get this information into the article so you're doing yourself no favors by pretending everyone but you is insincere. - SudoGhost 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It was unfair of me to assume you insincere. That said, I disagree with your reasoning for deleting the section. I strongly disagree with your belief that the information is not significant. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to agree, but unless you can show that it's significant, there's nothing indicating that it is. Until you can do that, and get a consensus to reinsert the material, it doesn't belong on the article, so please stop reinserting it just because you disagree with the reason given, because several people are disagreeing with you. - SudoGhost 23:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Several people do agree with me. In fact, the response to the WP:3PO request here found in favor of inclusion. Further, I think the content has inherent and obvious significance. I don't see why anyone would want to remove this informative content from Wikipedia if not to hide the truth of it or perhaps, in your case, misguided deletionism. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to throw around accusations does you no good, I think that's become apparent by now. Without reliable sources showing that this is a notable thing, it does not belong. Nothing has "inherent and obvious significance", it has to be shown, there are no exceptions. The discussion from 2009/2010 doesn't show a very strong consensus, if any, and consensus certainly seems to have changed, so that's a moot point. - SudoGhost 16:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is notable enough that ExtremeTech and TechSpot have written about it, neither of which are WordPress blogs. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in the TechSpot article does it say anything about this? I looked through that entire article and saw nothing that would even come close to supporting what you're saying. The ExtremeTech piece looks to be the only thing that makes any mention of this, and its done in a "I reviewed this OS and someone sent me an email asking if I supported these political opinions, so I'll write a piece about how I don't but that it doesn't affect my review" kind of way so that's not much for showing that this is a big deal, especially because this "I was asked and no, I don't agree with it" post was the only thing that makes any mention of it. I've looked online as best as I could, and it looks like some forums discussed it, but that's pretty much it. - SudoGhost 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In Clement Lefebvre's own words, "Does the section deserve to be here because it represents something for people who got hurt by what I said? Yes, I believe it does." Also, Arcscarve and Tadamdam both have exactly two contributions to Wikipedia (that remove the section); I find this suspicious. --The Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the article because he said it publicly, and because it is highly unusual. If the founder of a major operating system tells any group or persuasion not to use it, I think that is noteworthy. --Jleon (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You may think it noteworthy and unusual, but reliable sources don't seem to give it notice, and that's what we use to determine if something is worth mentioning. - SudoGhost 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There are reliable sources for the initial statement on the distro's own blog, the subsequent apology, and the reassurances that followed. Anyway, I understand that people who support Linux Mint are going to dominate the consensus here, as that is one of the primary shortcomings of wikipedia, so go ahead and continue whitewashing it... --Jleon (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with sockpuppeting going on with the user accounts Arcscarve and Tadamdam. SudoGhost and CodeCat, please don't deface my talk page with accusations of edit warring. You two have already revealed your biases. I think you should leave the edit warring accusations to those that do not have a horse in the race. Please WP:AAGF. If Arcscarve and Tadamdam are not sockpuppets they are welcome to say so. However, their lack of edit histories and their lack of any comment or discussion whatsoever, despite my requests of them, is an indication of very sloppy and lazy sockpuppeting. This is clearly a contentious issue. So contentious, in fact, that there was a necessity for a WP:3O, which was decided in favor of inclusion by TRANSPORTERMAN. Please respect the WP:3O and stop deleting poignant, factual, historical content. Thank you. --The Author (henceforth will be posting as JohnGoodName) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I created this account to stop you from littering the article. This is my only account and I didn't edit any other article. Hopefully an admin can verify this. Consensus was reached by the initial participants. You're entitled not to agree with it but you should not ignore it. You failed to convince not only CodeCat and SudoGhost but also Jim Rogers10 who was among the initial protagonists. If you want to go against the consensus, you need to find compelling arguments instead of repeating the same things and accusing everybody. You were blocked temporarily and you couldn't spam the article every day like you're doing now. Hopefully the next time you're blocked it will be permanent. Read the talk page again, look at how many people are cleaning your spam. Stop forcing your edits on everyone else. Arcscarve (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, please WP:AGF. Accusations of sockpuppetry are pretty much the opposite. CodeCat (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Accusations of sockpuppetry and bias usually indicate that the person making the allegations has nothing of substance to say regarding the actual content. If you don't want to be given edit-warring warnings, then do not edit war. It is not "defacing" to notify you of that, and if you think you weren't edit warring, take a look at the article's history and your recent contributions. If you think there is sockpuppetry going on, either open a sockpuppetry report or do not make allegations to which you have no evidence. If having previously made a comment means there is a "bias" on the subject then speaks more for you, who has been arguing this since 2009 than anyone else. You cannot edit war and ask others to discuss without doing so yourself; you're referring to a 3O when a 3O doesn't help here; a third-opinion is for when only two individuals disagree, not when there are numerous editors commenting on the subject, then it becomes just another opinion, not a final word in any capacity. Even with this third opinion you keep referring to, the previous discussion most certainly did not have a consensus to include the subject, if anything there appears to be the opposite. - SudoGhost 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Arcscarve for finally joining us in the talk. I am sorry that you feel the way you do, but please don't accuse me of being a spammer. At the time that I was temporarily blocked, I didn't know about WP:3RR and I am learning as I'm going. My first edit to this article was on 05:31, 22 November 2012‎ not in 2009, although it seems there was a consensus for inclusion of a similar section at that time too. If we are looking at where the consensus lies, it seems that based on the number of people reverting the removals that it is in favor of inclusion. The WP:3O is an indication that, from a neutral point of view, the section deserves to be included. Even the creator of Linux Mint himself has argued for inclusion. If Linux Mint is going to succeed then it needs to be aware of its history. By deleting this section you are doing Linux Mint a disservice by not allowing it to be aware of its history and to learn from it. JohnGoodName (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to ask that someone not accuse you of being a spammer, it would help if you in turn didn't accuse others of bias when they disagree with you and of sockpuppetry. There was no consensus for inclusion in the previous discussions. As for the insistence on the single editor's third opinion from four years ago, please read WP:3O as it explains that a third-opinion isn't binding nor is it useful when there are already more than two people discussing the content. Considering the information has little to do with the actual subject of the article, content about an individual's comments are not crucial to the article's history like you're trying to make it sound, especially given the lack of coverage on the subject and especially with the amount of focus that much text gives something unrelated to the article's subject. - SudoGhost 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the "if Linux Mint is going to succeed" comment. Is that relevant for Wikipedia? CodeCat (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Linux Mint. The subject of the section in question is also Linux Mint. A significant historical event regarding Linux Mint belongs in the History section of the Linux Mint article. Claiming that it is unrelated to the article is absurd. Claiming WP:UNDUE does not justify deleting a well documented and very controversial event. The founder of Linux Mint admitted that it belongs on Wikipedia, why can't you? JohnGoodName (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You said all of this already, repeating it doesn't make it any more relevant the second time. If it is significant, find sources saying so. A claim from an IP address claiming to be Lefebvre doesn't change that since (1) anyone can claim that and (2) reliable sources dictate content and weight, not subjects wanting to use it for a purpose. - SudoGhost 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the section that I wrote is completely well sourced, as anyone can see by reading it. Both the official Linux Mint blog and a two page ExtremeTech article by Jim Lynch lend weight to the original event. The follow up about the mintBox is documented on both the Linux Mint blog and on TechSpot. Once again, claiming WP:UNDUE does not justify deleting a well documented and very controversial event. The section is not biased, it is not large, and it is not unsourced. Wikipedia deserves to have the best possible article about Linux Mint and that includes this significant historical event. Why do you feel the need to keep removing it? JohnGoodName (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed since 2009. If you still do not know why it is not in the article, you are more than welcome to read through the discussions that have taken place, but repeating the same things over and over again without presenting anything new is not going to change the article and I'm not going to answer questions that have already been answered. You can't say WP:UNDUE doesn't justify removing something only tangentially related to the subject that is only supported by a couple of blogs, because it does. This grandoise puffery about the importance of this content doesn't make it so unless there are reliable sources that reflect that, and there aren't. Unless you can provide some reliable source that does in fact say anything close to describing this as a "significant historical event", it's not. It's a minor detail that might be relevant in an article about the individual, but isn't relevant to the subject especially with the sources given. If it's such a significant historical event, create an article about the actual subject of the event if there are sources that would support it, but just because something happened doesn't mean it belongs in any relevant article that happens to exist. While Linux Mint might be relevant to the event, but that doesn't mean that the event is relevant to Linux Mint, not in the level of detail Wikipedia presents information. That is why it is WP:UNDUE, and why that policy is relevant to the information. - SudoGhost 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked you why you keep removing the section, and all you can offer is a dubious WP:UNDUE. ExtremeTech and the Linux Mint blog are both reputable sources that give weight to this information and your dismissal of them doesn't change that. Your claim that a small section describing a formative event in the history of Linux Mint is not related or relevant to the Linux Mint article is unsupported and incorrect. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not "keep" removing the section, I have not edited this article since January. Wikipedia policy is not dubious simply because you don't like its application. There is a single source, the ExtremeTech piece, which is a blog entry about a blog entry that discusses the content briefly, and would be relevant for an article about the developer if such an article exists. The other blog is a brief note about redacted content, and goes into no more detail than that. Are there any other sources? Relevance and weight are established by reliable sources, and if it's just this single blog piece from 2009, then it doesn't appear to be the "significant historical event" you're saying it is. - SudoGhost 04:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What you attempt to trivialize as "a blog entry about a blog entry" is in fact an ExtremeTech article that references the voice of Linux Mint, the official Linux Mint blog. This is the mouthpiece of the project and the information it contains is relevant to the project and the article on Wikipedia about the project. Calling the blog post by Clement Lefebvre that has replaced the original offensive post that was made "a brief note" is more than absurd. The post is an integral part of the history and I urge you to study it further if you don't understand why the content is not WP:UNDUE. I am sorry that you are not satisfied with the reliable sources that I have provided, but if you read them you will find that they fully document and lend weight to the content in question. If you feel that you can improve the content then I invite you to do so, but you being unhappy with it as I have created it is insufficient justification for your insistence on removing it. JohnGoodName (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how this is anything but a brief note. There is a single reliable source, a blog on ExtremeTech, that mentions this in any way, but nowhere near in the way you're claiming. You keep saying that it's a "significant historical event" and that it's an "integral part of the history", but you're not providing a single source that comes anywhere close to saying that. Unless you can verify these claims, they don't really mean anything. The ExtremeTech source verifies that it happened and would make it relevant for an article on the individual, but it doesn't make it relevant enough to mention on this article. It doesn't belong in the article with the sources currently given, you mischaracterizing the motivations of others and not addressing the concerns given won't place it in the article. If it is as critical and important as you're making it seem, then finding reliable sources to back up that claim should be no problem. If you're serious about it being as critical as you're saying then your reply will hopefully include reliable sources (not blogs or forum posts) that can be discussed and you can show what you've been trying to say. - SudoGhost 06:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The "brief note" is important because the "brief note" is actually the original apology that replaces the controversial post; see the ExtremeTech article for details. While there are numerous other sources and discussions on the internet, the ones I have chosen to use are the most reliable. The event was quite notable and caused a very strong community reaction. The event is notable not just for an article about the individual, which doesn't exist, but also, and perhaps more so, to the project in which the event took place and where the effects took place. I understand that in your subjective opinion that the section as it stands is WP:UNDUE but you should understand that in my opinion the ExtremeTech article is a fine source that canonically discusses the relevant information that can be found in numerous discussions and blogs across the internet. If there are a lack of more non-blog, non-forum sources then perhaps it is because of the taboo nature of the content and not because of a lack of notability. Luckily, I was able to find sufficient Wikipedia-quality sourcing for the information, which is already included. Clearly we are not the first to disagree about this as there has even been a WP:3O about this content, which, as you know, was decided in favor of inclusion. JohnGoodName (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When you introduce yourself to somebody you meet do you tell them how drunk you were at some party 4 years ago and all the stupid things you said that night? Did some people take pictures of you and put them on Facebook? Does that make it a relevant part of your history? Should everybody see these when they want to know who you are? Do you see my point here? This article barely scratches the surface of what Linux Mint is and all it's done since it started. If you're trying to explain to newcomers what something is, you should leave anecdotes asides, in particular those which are regretted by the team and which depict the project to something it clearly isn't. I'm pretty sure that's what was meant by UNDUE. Arcscarve (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I can understand your reluctance to include an embarrassing event in the Linux Mint article, but it is important that the information be included due to the poignancy and unusualness of the event. Luckily, the mistake that was made is balanced by the subsequent apology and the mintBox development. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
So you don't have any sources to back up your claims that this information is somehow critical, and anyone that disagrees with you (but only those that disagree with you) is "subjective" and "biased". You've already been asked to read WP:3O, which explains why it holds no weight in a discussion with this many people; that doesn't mean anything and repeating it when that's already been explained just seems like you're grasping at straws. Wikipedia uses sources to determine what is relevant and notable. You're saying that it's due to a "taboo nature" that sources are lacking but other taboo subjects have no problem with sourcing, and on Wikipedia sources determine what is important. You believe that a single blog on ExtremeTech is sufficient, but it is not. If you're going to claim that it's critical to the history of the subject, and that it requires an entire section dedicated to it, then it is not unreasonable to ask you to back up that claim. That request shouldn't be an issue if the content were truly so important. I have no doubt that you believe the content is important, but sources do not seem to agree, and it is sources which hold more weight on Wikipedia. The only thing that's going to help you is to prove what you've been saying and find sources; repeating arguments that have already been refuted won't. - SudoGhost 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I do have sources, you just don't happen to like them. I referenced the WP:3O hoping that you would see that you are incorrect in your claim of WP:UNDUE. The ExtremeTech article and the statements made by the founder of Linux Mint on the Linux Mint official blog are more than enough to lend weight and notability to the content, and your claims that they are insufficient are unfounded. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you have a source. One. The Linux Mint blog entry (1) is a primary source and (2) doesn't come anywhere close to supporting all of that content. A third-opinion doesn't carry any final say when there are a dozen editors already discussing the content. A single ExtremeTech blog entry supporting an entire section of content is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. You saying that "claims...are unfounded" doesn't somehow negate Wikipedia policy. Find some sources, or drop it, you can't argue content into relevance on Wikipedia when sources don't support it. If it's as important as you're claiming, that should be very easy to do. If sources can't be found, then it apparently isn't that important to the article. - SudoGhost 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Nor can you argue content into irrelevance. You are correct that I have a source, and it is a good one. Realize that it represents the tip of an issue that is, in fact, an iceberg, and your claim that it is wikipedia policy to remove sourced, notable content is unfounded. JohnGoodName (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If it is the tip of the iceberg, then show that iceberg, because all you have there is a single blog post and you're puffing it up to be something it's not. At this point it seems pretty clear that the blog doesn't "represent" anything; it's all you've got. I've asked several times now for you to back up your grandiose claims that this is somehow critical to the history of the article's subject, and you have not done so. If all you're going to do is continue to make those claims without backing them up, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. The content is WP:UNDUE, merely disagreeing with that without showing how it's relevant doesn't say much. You've got a single blog that mentioned it, and you're grasping at that straw for lack of anything better, but that's not going to get that content in the article because it doesn't belong in the article. Unless and until there is consensus for the material it doesn't belong on the article, so I'd recommend using your time searching for sources, because that is what holds weight on Wikipedia, not grandiose claims that you can't back up with sources. Am I opposed to the material? No, I don't care one way or the other about it, but what I care about is the sourcing. If there are sources that support it, then I will support it. If there are not, then I won't. Find one or two more independent third-party sources that discuss the topic and I will gladly support the content, because that will prove that it isn't just some one-off quirk by a tech-blogger but that it's actually a relevant topic that has the attention of reliable sources. If those can't be found, then that pretty much verifies that it isn't that relevant to the subject, and sources (and the lack thereof) speak much louder than anything else. - SudoGhost 05:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I will add more sources as and if I find them. It is not unreasonable to want more sources and I respect your opinion that the information could use more sources, but I disagree with your opinion that it needs more sources. I believe that the content is supported by the sources I have referenced, which include the ExtremeTech article, and you clearly do not. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion on what is or isn't notable is not authoritative. JohnGoodName (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A single blog, the only reliable source you have, does not warrant an entire contentious section in an article. That is Wikipedia policy. You don't have to agree with it, but until you get more sources or a consensus that the single blog is sufficient, it won't be in the article. - SudoGhost 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion on what constitutes the number of and reliability of the sources. You don't have to agree with it, but until you prove the sources unreliable or get a consensus (maybe even a WP:3O) the content may be in the article. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
If that's the kind of intelligent discussion you're going to drop to, there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. You are a single-purpose account and are well aware that the content is disputed as you have tried to include it in the article well over a dozen times now and it has been reverted by numerous editors, so you're going to have to get a consensus to include it. It is not the reliability of sources that is in question, that's the latest of several red herrings and does not reflect well upon the strength of your argument when you have to mischaracterize what others say in order to try to address them. Get a consensus or get some sources, that's not hard to do if the information is as critical as you're claiming. - SudoGhost 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Your ad hominem attacks and do nothing to strengthen your repetitive and refuted arguments. There have been numerous editors that have tried to include this content over the years and their frustration with being censored does not justify your claim that there is no consensus for inclusion. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to explain how any argument made has been refuted, because you disagreeing is not "refuting" anything. Making wild claims about the importance of the content without backing up those claims even less so. Sources will refute what I've said, not wild claims and disagreeing for the sake of doing so. "Numerous" editors does not make it a consensus on that merit alone, when many more editors have disagreed. I'm assuming by "ad hominem attacks" you're referring to WP:SPA; your edits on Wikipedia have overwhelmingly been to push this content, that's not a personal attack, it is a verifiable fact and relevant to you accusing others (but only those that disagree with you) of "bias". - SudoGhost 15:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not a one topic editor. Don't forget to include the history of my edits as an IP account. Regardless, your belittlement of my contributions to Wikipedia doesn't matter because it is a red herring that is totally irrelevant to this discussion, and the fact that you feel the need to pursue it shows the weakness of your position. Your vague accusations of "wild claims" do nothing to support your argument. The fact of the matter is that the content is reliably sourced and notable, both on ExtremeTech and the distribution's official blog, and your subjective and incorrect opinion does nothing to change that. JohnGoodName (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You are a single purpose account, even taking your edit-warring as an IP editor into consideration, and when you accuse others of bias your editing is relevant to show the context of your attacking others; it is not a red herring. If you really think it's a "vague accusation", then you should re-read the discussion. You claimed that it was a significant historical event and did not provide sources showing that when asked. You said it was well documented and very controversial, but again provided no sources. You said it was a formative event in the history of Linux Mint, but provided nothing showing so. You have a single ExtremeTech blog verifying that it happened, but even that source says nothing about it having any lasting impact on anything in any way, and it is the only reliable source on the subject and that single blog makes an entire section WP:UNDUE. If your claims about its importance were accurate, sources would show this (if nothing else then just by existing), but such sources do not exist. I have made no "vague accusations"; I have asked you to show with sources what you've been saying. You have failed to do so, and instead resort to rewording my own comments presumably to obfuscate any actual discussion, since there is no substance to your comments otherwise. You are welcome to have the last word, but the lack of sources speaks louder than anything you would say since Wikipedia policy cares about sources, not meek accusations of bias without merit. - SudoGhost 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are unable to justify your opinion on the supposed inadequacy of the sources and instead of doing so you are now attacking me. You should stop attacking me and start reconsidering your unfounded position. Whether or not you are biased is irrelevant, what is relevant is that you are wrong. I am very aware of my positions and it is unfortunate that, although you are able to repeat them back to me, you don't seem to be able to understand that they are already substantiated by the existing references. Your weak and desperate argument that the content lacks notability is easily and soundly refuted by simply reading the sources included. Unfortunately, it seems that your version of reading involves a cursory glance followed by mischaracterization of the sources' content in order to try and mold it to conform to your erroneous argument. Look at the statements that are made in the content. Look at the statements that are made in the references. Do they match up, yes or no? The answer is yes. The sources range from 2009 to 2012, maybe you require sources from 2013, 2014, and 2015 before you can consider the content to have a lasting impact? Maybe the Linux Mint distribution's official information channel, it's blog, is not a source of notable information about Linux Mint to you; maybe referencing the Ubuntu and Debian blogs would make you feel more comfortable that it is relevant to Linux Mint? Perhaps "it’s now caused a partisan political split in the Linux Mint community" is not an impact to you? Perhaps "The topic itself is about as red-hot as you’ll find anywhere." is not notable to you? Perhaps you should reconsider your position instead of continuing your ad hominem attacks, since you don't seem to be able to reasonably attack the content or the sources. I understand. Really, I do. You want more and better sources. That's fine. But what you need to realize is that wanting more doesn't negate the validity and sufficiency of what there is, and you should try to restrain yourself from attacking me because, as much as you may wish it to be the case, disagreeing with you is not against Wikipedia policy. JohnGoodName (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I admire your patience and persistence, SudoGhost, but I think by now it's obvious that you're trying to argue reason with a troll. You're not going to win as he seems prepared to continue to apply his losing argument (that his one weak source is sufficient) to the end of days. You've convincingly won the argument-- at this point I would submit to you that you're only providing troll-food to JohnGoodName.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. A negative attitude and name calling doesn't add anything to the discussion, though. JohnGoodName (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't believe that I'm name-calling, I think I'm simply making a factual description of you. Second, I'm not trying to contribute to the conversation, I'm trying to end it. I believe your case has been fully stated and is severely lacking. No one else is supporting you. I say that it's time to put an end to this circling of the mulberry bush. I propose that everyone stop editing this section until/unless a different (better) argument is put forward. That's what I plan to do.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I recommend you restrain yourself from giving offensive so called "factual descriptions" about other editors. If you feel that you have nothing to add to the conversation that is fine. You are also welcome to disagree with me, just as I disagree with you. My case is fully stated, and I will continue to respond to criticism if I choose to do so as I have a strong argument that is worth defending. JohnGoodName (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
At this point I think putting an end to the constant and unchanging repetition of your reason for inclusion of the material in question is probably the most positive thing anyone could add to (subtract from?) the conversation. Perhaps others will disagree and continue engaging you, but I will not be doing so. Best of luck with your argument.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Repetitive responses are the result of repetitive criticisms. Some editors agree with me that the section should be included and some don't, and if those that don't seek an explanation for why they are wrong then I will give it to them as part of the process of working towards a stronger consensus for inclusion. JohnGoodName (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

I've decided to "be bold" and remove the NPOV tag. It seems clear that there's no concensus for the article to include a section dredging up some drama about Israel from some years back. Now that it's been removed from the article, I don't see any relevant POV issue, so there's no reason to have an ugly tag cluttering the beginning of the article. Of course if anyone disagrees they can revert and discuss here... -Helvetica (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Editions section[edit]

The Editions section is unclear. The Linux Mint Download pages 1) do not state Linux Mint 13 or the Windows Installer as an edition 2) state the different desktop environments as editions. This section mixes editions and versions alternatively. Also, there is no longer a No Codecs version or an OEM version, which the article gives a citation based on an outdated version of Linux Mint. This section needs to be cleaned up urgently as it is far too misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wei2912 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't realize there was an OEM and No Codecs version. Sorry for that. Wei2912 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

DistroWatch again[edit]

The sources do not make this distinction, so it doesn't belong in the article. DistroWatch itself is also unambiguous on which versions (Ubuntu and Linux Mint), so these tags aren't necessary, and I'm not really sure why they were added since it's not unclear in any way. Unless reliable sources can be found that refute the sources already in the article, it's not a case of WP:UNDUE since it's reflecting those sources; to make a distinction that reliable sources do not based on what we think the sources might have meant is what would be WP:UNDUE, even ignoring the fact that that supposition wouldn't be verified. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That the sources don't make the distinction is exactly why the tags are there. The distinction is important; it's like if someone had said Yahoo Messenger is more popular than Windows Live Messenger, but neglected to mention that statistics for "Windows Live Messenger" did not include "MSN Messenger". Distrowatch does reflect the distinction between the different Ubuntu variants. Each of them has its own separate statistic, while there is no such distinction for Mint; all Mint varieties are grouped together. This distinction is important for the same reason, and it was included in the article by several editors, but you removed it. Since I was not able to convince you to stop removing it, I had to resort to tagging the article instead to make it clear that there is important contextual information missing. As long as this information is not supplied in the article, the tags should stay. CodeCat (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed it because it's unsourced content not supported by the reliable sources. There is no confusion on which "Ubuntu", xubuntu is not Ubuntu, it is a derivative of Ubuntu. The same is true of Linux Mint, only xubuntu is recognized by Canonical. Unless reliable sources make any note whatsoever that xubuntu and others are included, they aren't and there's no confusion about that; tags are not a workaround when the content you want doesn't belong. - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You're saying that a "which?" tag is unsourced? That's complete nonsense. I added the tag precisely because there is inadequate sourcing. You haven't provided any information whatsoever about what is included under the name "Ubuntu" or "Mint", and this is important information to include in the article as it gives further significance to the statement that "Mint has surpassed Ubuntu". Furthermore, there was a time when Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and other derivatives were officially recognised as part of the Ubuntu banner. There's also Linux Mint Debian Edition, Linux Mint KDE Edition, LXDE edition, Xfce edition and so on. Were these included as part of "Mint", or were they separate? I want the article to include information about which of these editions were included in the statistics and which were not. Without this information, the statement is empty and useless, and might as well be removed no matter how many sources said it. Just because sources say something doesn't mean it's useful for an article, you should know this. So either: 1. find sources that specify what "Ubuntu" and "Mint" mean in this context, 2. reinstate the tags, or 3. remove the sentence from the article altogether. CodeCat (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying a "which" tag is unsourced, read that again: the distinction is unsourced, hence I removed it. I removed the tags because tagging is not an alternative for when you want unsourced information in the article but it doesn't belong. There is inadequate sourcing for what you want it to say, but there's no confusion on what it actually says. It took me a few seconds to verify "which", because that information is found on DistroWatch. The information isn't being removed, an unsourced, WP:UNDUE comment isn't being added to it, and the tags do not belong because there's no confusion on which Ubuntu is meant; that information is found in the source itself. Yes, xubuntu, kubuntu and the like are derivatives of Ubuntu but they are not factored in for the obvious reason that they are not Ubuntu (and no, xubuntu is not simply Ubuntu with xfce installed). It is only Ubuntu. Which version? The one specified at DistroWatch. Which Linux Mint? The one specified at DistroWatch. You want to make a distinction where the sources don't to imply something that the sources don't? Find a reliable source that supports that, otherwise it's WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is not unsourced, since DistroWatch makes the distinction explicit to some degree, by including Ubuntu variants as separate distributions, while not giving Mint variants the same treatment. The issue at hand here is not about what I want it to say, but about whether what it currently says is substantial enough to be included in the article. The sentence "Mint surpassed Ubuntu" needs qualification, and I have stated why it needs qualification. If you were able to verify "which" by using the sources then why did you not include it in the article? That's why the tags are there in the first place. They're there because the article needs more information that is currently not included. It doesn't matter whether that information is taken from the sources that are already present, or from sources that still need to be found.
Furthermore, I am very frustrated with you reverting me adding the tags. The tags are there because someone disagrees with the content of the article, and neither 1. changes have been made to alleviate it, nor 2. a consensus has been formed that the current state is good. You are not in any position to just decide unilaterally that there is a consensus to leave the phrasing as it is, so it's bad form to remove the tags until the dispute has been resolved. We're still talking here, and there's now a thread on WP:ANI about it too, so clearly there is no consensus yet. Hence, the tags should stay until agreement has been reached. So please put them back until consensus is reached. CodeCat (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Linux Mint itself is a derivative, so this edit makes zero sense, unless you amend it to say "excluding Ubuntu derivatives officially recognized by Canonical" and not only is that just an awkward attempt at inserting that, it's also completely WP:UNDUE. It needs no "qualification" in terms of mentioning that all other derivatives other than Linux Mint were not included; those other derivatives are not Ubuntu, that's terribly WP:UNDUE to assume that the article should take such pains to clarify something that isn't unclear in the first place. The tags were added not because it's unclear which ones, but because the unsourced content was removed; you know full well which ones, the sources state such which is why they were removed. Which Ubuntu? Ubuntu, the one listed and the one found at Ubuntu's website there are multiple versions to download there, just as there are with Mint. That's only "unclear" if you're trying to add in other distros that aren't Ubuntu. The distinction is unsourced, it's not only undue, but also synthesis to make connections where reliable sources do not. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear, or I wouldn't have added the tags. So why did you remove them? I'm not imagining that the phrasing is faulty to me; the tags represent a genuine problem I have with the article's current contents. Pretending there is no dispute (by removing the tags) won't make it go away. So why don't you put the tags back and try to work out a consensus first? The tags should only be removed when there is consensus, no sooner.
I do think that it needs qualifying what "Mint" and "Ubuntu" mean in this context. WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with it as there is no POV issue, at least not as long as we present the facts as accurately as they are available to us. If the sources tell us what qualifies as "Mint" and what qualifies as "Ubuntu" (which DistroWatch does implicitly to some degree, but hardly enough to give the statistics any real weight), then we should include it. If no sources qualify this, then that doesn't mean we should include the information without qualifying it ourselves. Instead, we should indicate that no sources made any qualification, which then gives the reader enough information to decide for themselves whether the statistics are reliable enough for whatever conclusion they want to draw from it.
Let me give an analogy if it helps any. The speed of sound in dry air at ground level, at a temperature of 20 C, is about 340 metres per second. The speed changes depending on the temperature, air pressure (which differs by height) and humidity. There are surely plenty of sources that don't qualify this, and simply state that "the speed of sound is 340 m/s". By itself, the statement is so vague that it's almost meaningless. In this case, too, I would be completely justified in asking for qualification as to under what conditions this statement holds. It would not do to just leave that statement unqualified. I'm doing the same here. The statement as it stands now is simply not specific enough to have any real encyclopedic value. What distributions are grouped under "Mint" and what distributions are grouped under "Ubuntu" is statistically significant and is necessary information for the statistics to be of any use in this article. It's just an empty statement otherwise. So either 1. it needs to be qualified (such as "these figures include LMDE, LM KDE, LM Xfce under Mint, but do not include Kubuntu, Xubuntu and Lubuntu under Ubuntu"), 2. a statement that asserts the vagueness of the sources should be added (something like "but they do not say which varieties of Ubuntu or Mint are included in these figures"), or 3. it should be removed altogether. If there are no sources for a distinction like you say, then that eliminates option 1. So that leaves only options 2 or 3. The fourth alternative, leaving things are they are now, is not a satisfactory option to me, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. CodeCat (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm confused, is it undue or does WP:UNDUE have nothing to do with it? You can't have it both ways, and you're asking to include a caveat that reliable sources do not to put emphasis on something that reliable sources do not, and that's WP:SYNTH and wholly inappropriate. "Mint" is that entry found at that link, and Ubuntu is that entry found at that link, there's no way that could be any more clear. The only issue is that it doesn't suit your viewpoint so you're grasping at straws to get the sentence removed and that's not an option, nor is adding a "disclaimer" that has no purpose or reason to be there other than to add WP:UNDUE emphasis through synthesis. Your analogy makes zero sense and has no relation to this edit. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF for starters. You're making a lot of claims about my intentions that are not relevant to this discussion. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." per WP:NPA.
The use of WP:UNDUE in that edit summary may have been a bit badly thought out, but I didn't really know how else to express it. The issue isn't really about giving a certain POV any undue weight, but more about something along the lines of an error by omission, or presenting information in a way that would mislead a reader into believing something that they would not believe if more information had been given. Essentially, the current article paints an inaccurate picture of the statistics. Painting an inaccurate picture is not bad per se; after all, sometimes we just can't do better with the sources we have available. But the inaccuracy itself should be noted in the article, and not doing so would be misleading. WP:UNDUE also concerns presenting information in a misleading way, so that was probably the connection I made at the time.
The "caveat" you mention brings me back to the issue of the speed of sound. If dozens of sources say simply "the speed of sound is 340 m/s" without qualification, then that would need qualification, either by saying under what conditions (i.e. find better sources) or by saying that the sources do not state under which conditions this holds true. Why would such a caveat need sourcing? It's already in the sources: the sources neglect to say what editions of Mint and Ubuntu were included in the statistics, while those determinations are very significant for the statistics in question. For example, for all we know, if Kubuntu had been included as part of Ubuntu (just as Mint KDE was probably included as part of Mint?) then Ubuntu might still have been listed as number one. The fact that we don't know this (as long as there are no sources to tell us more) says something about the realiability of the sources that Wikipedia is quoting here, and that most definitely needs mentioning in the article. I, as a reader of this article, would definitely be left wondering about this if it were left in its current state.
Maybe this would be a more accurate analogy. Let's say that there is a source that says 80% of a population is German, 15% is Russian and 5% is Jewish. Could we just quote that source directly in an article? I don't think so. For such a claim to have any significance, we'd need some way to determine what method was used to determine who is German, who is Russian and who is Jewish (note also Who is a Jew?; this is a difficult question with many possible answers!). Did they go by language? Religion? Self-declared ethnicity? Something else? What about Russian Jews and German Jews? You see what I'm getting at? When quoting statistics it's very important to say what considerations were made when compiling them, and equally important to mention what was not considered. We definitely need to say something about it to guarantee the reliability of information presented on Wikipedia. If we don't know, then that's what we should say: we don't know how they determined it. To omit that would mislead our readers. CodeCat (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:AAGF, also that AN/I discussion makes your comment a bit hypocritical. Also see WP:TLDR because that's (again) a whole lot of text that doesn't really say much. Less is more. That analogy doesn't match up to this content at all and makes it seem like you don't really understand what DistroWatch is or how it works. If that's the case why are you trying to clarify something you don't understand using reasoning that doesn't apply? If someone clicks Ubuntu, that adds one to Ubuntu. It doesn't matter that Ubuntu has derivatives or what someone "considers" Ubuntu from some other standpoint, they're clicking on the word Ubuntu, and that adds one to that count. That one word, "Ubuntu", is what is measured, not any specifics beyond that, so to try to attribute specifics doesn't make sense, because that's not what's being measured. That's why I'm telling you that when you're asking for a clarification of "which", that makes no sense and doesn't apply. Now normally that's not a good metric to measure things, but DistroWatch is a pretty big deal in the Linux community, enough for multiple reliable sources to publish articles specifically about Mint overtaking Ubuntu., and that is why it is mentioned. That Ubuntu derivatives aren't Ubuntu (of course they aren't) is irrelevant and not worth mentioning, that's WP:UNDUE (and also ignores the fact that Mint is also a derivative so of course that wouldn't include them; it would be impossible for Mint to be more viewed than Ubuntu and derivatives). - Aoidh (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
(I'm not even going to bother with the first few sentences of your post...) Well at least now we're getting somewhere. It currently says that Mint was the "most viewed distribution". So if the words "Mint" and "Ubuntu" are what is significant, not the distributions themselves, then that's what needs changing in the article. That is the kind of qualification I am looking for. So how should it be phrased to reflect this?
And if Ubuntu derivatives are not Ubuntu, how do I know that as a reader? The article doesn't say anything about this at all, it just leaves me guessing. (It's not terribly relevant to a reader what sources say. Readers don't read sources, they read Wikipedia articles. I'm concerned only about the article.) Furthermore, DistroWatch considers Kubuntu to be separate from Ubuntu, while Mint KDE is probably included in Mint, so clearly there is something skewed about such reasoning. Otherwise why isn't Mint KDE also separate from Mint, since it's "not Mint" either? Or is it? See, it's not so clear... CodeCat (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that as a reader? The same way any reader finds out anything; reading the relevant articles. That is how you increase reader understanding, by pointing to relevant articles, but every mention of Ubuntu doesn't need to point out that not everything based on Ubuntu is Ubuntu, that's what the Ubuntu (and other articles) are for. This article doesn't say anything about this because it's not relevant; the sources dictate content, and it's completely irrelevant that other distros are based on Ubuntu, when they are not being discussed by any sources here whatsoever in any fashion. The article as written is fine, there's nothing that needs to be changed because: (1) "Ubuntu" is a distribution. (2) "Linux Mint" is a distribution. (3) On DistroWatch, Linux Mint was viewed more than Ubuntu. (4) There are other distributions based on Ubuntu, but those are not being discussed because they are not the same as Ubuntu, as they have different developers, websites, maintainers, download channels, and each applied for a separate entry on DistroWatch; they are not Ubuntu in any way that is even slightly relevant to the sentence in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
But then what about Mint varieties? When Mint has more views, does that include views for Mint KDE edition, or does that have its own entry on DistroWatch? What I am concerned about is that if the statistics for DistroWatch include Mint varieties in "Mint", but do not include Ubuntu varieties in "Ubuntu" (and from my impression, this is indeed the case), then this skews the picture in favour of Mint, and it becomes comparing apples to oranges. Hence, this needs to be qualified, as I said before. I'm not sure why I'm not able to make that clear to you. CodeCat (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The answer to that is quite simple; Ubuntu and xubuntu and Kubuntu are not the same project, not found on the same website or download channels, with different development teams and different goals. They are not the same distro, those are three different distros (don't take my word for it, look it up) Linux Mint on the other hand has different download CDs depending on which DE packages you want, but the only difference is packages; they are the same project found on the same website and download channel, with the same devs and goals, and the same DistroWatch entry. The style in which Linux Mint is presented is different, but it is Linux Mint. Kubuntu, however, is not simply Ubuntu with a different iso, it is a different project based on Ubuntu, but it is not the Ubuntu distribution. Also your comment at WP:3O (which wasn't filled out correctly, but I'm not going to be the one to touch it) isn't quite accurate. Distributions such as Kubuntu and xubuntu are not "editions" of Ubuntu, they are separate distributions entirely the same way Linux Mint is (Linux Mint also shares repositories, etc.), but the exception is that Kubuntu is endorsed by Canonical whereas Linux Mint is not. As for "what about Mint varieties", what about them? Do you have any sources that show that this is something the article needs to point out? If not, then reliable sources, which should dictate article content, can answer that question for you. - Aoidh (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know there was such a distinction. From what I remember, Kubuntu was offered as simply an alternative edition on the Ubuntu website, much as the KDE Edition of Mint is. To the outside world, this difference in organisation isn't really visible and probably not very interesting either. So we can't expect the average reader to know that either. I mean, the current article misled me to think that the statistics included all Ubuntu editions, so it's not so strange that I think other readers would be misled by this as well. This article should not be just for the technical minded, so a distinction that is obvious for you, as an insider, is not going to be obvious to readers. So we should include a notice. I've done so now. CodeCat (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
...and I'm removing it for the reasons I've already explained, not least of all because this wording is faulty in that Kubuntu is not Ubuntu, you keep replying as if they are the same distro when they quite clearly are not. "What you remember" is wrong, Kubuntu isn't on the Ubuntu website, and it's not just a "difference in organization", they are completely different distros the same way Linux Mint is not the same as Ubuntu. If you disagree and you think this distinction is notable, find a source that contradicts what the sources say, because you're arguing against the sources (namely DistroWatch) and trying to include synthesis in the article. It is for that reason that the edit has been reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok I've had just about enough of this. I try to discuss, I try to make an effort to accommodate you, and you just blatantly revert it again. I'm submitting you for 3RR. CodeCat (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see the definition of WP:3RR first. Your note is synthesis and WP:UNDUE, and you knew there was an objection to that before you made the edit. Please, discuss and get a consensus, don't try to strong-arm your preferred edit in and accuse me of edit-warring when I want to discuss before making that kind of change to the article. If your edit is valid, others will agree with you and I'd have no choice but to follow consensus, but this "I'm going to try to insert it any way I can until you don't revert it" type of editing isn't productive and doesn't help anyone. Also keep in mind that you are also edit-warring by continuing to insert it even after it is known that there is a disagreement; you've already reported this to WP:ANI and didn't get the response you were expecting, wait for someone else to weigh in before continuing to try to push the content into the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This whole discussion is just a farce. You're not interested in a consensus, only in making me give up. I try, I try, I try, you revert, revert, revert. I'm done with it. Discussion over. Let someone else handle it. CodeCat (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:NPA, please don't tell me what I am and am not interested in, because that's speculation (inaccurate and inappropriate at that). You try, try, try, to insert the material after you know there's a disagreement with it; that's called edit-warring and I'm at a loss as to how you figure it's fine when you do it. You opened an AN/I discussion; take the advice there and wait for more editors to weigh in and discuss because that's how a consensus is formed, not by pushing edits until the other editor gets fed up with you trying to force inappropriate content into an article. WP:3O and WP:DR exist for a reason, give them a chance to work, - Aoidh (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is not in your favor. You should report yourself for edit warring SudoGhost. Not only are the hit counters on DistroWatch completely irrelevant and unencylopedic but you further distort their questionable value by removing information essential to their understanding. You are not content to have irrelevant DistroWatch information remain in the article, it has to be misleading as well to satisfy you? JohnGoodName (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia JohnGoodName, please see WP:CONSENSUS, and refrain from personal attacks. As was explained to you by another editor the last time you used that rationale, reliable sources dictate what is relevant, and reliable sources made a big deal out of the DistroWatch numbers, so they aren't being removed just because you are of the opinion that they are "irrelevant". - Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the only personal attacks are coming from you. We've discussed this before, and I would appreciate if you and your co-conspirator Eyesnore would refrain from defacing my Talk page with false accusations. You sure get defensive when people disagree with you. Thanks for making me feel so welcome to Wikipedia. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
If I made personal attacks, please point them out with diffs, otherwise stop accusing others of personal attacks, that's not a discussion that's pointing fingers. If you have issues with my behavior, please feel free to take it to WP:ANI or open an WP:RFC/U, where it can be dealt with if it truly is an issue, otherwise those kinds of comments just come across as very poor form of argument when the actual issue cannot be argued well. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Accusing me of personal attacks in the absence of any is a personal attack. I fully endorse any decision you make to report yourself for edit warring, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC/U. I myself would prefer to logically discuss the actual content of the article but I don't know if you'll have time for that since you seem to preoccupied with defacing my Talk page. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't just say you're here to discuss the edit, because so far that's the only thing you haven't done. Either open an WP:RFC/U, or discuss the content, because continuing to throw those accusations around here (1) won't solve those problems if they exists, and (2) only highlight that you have nothing of value to say about the actual content, so you're resorting to accusations instead to fill the void. Prove me wrong by opening an WP:RFC/U, anything short of that will show that your claims ring hollow, because otherwise you'd actually do something about them. However, unless you plan on opening an RFC/U, see below as until an uninvolved editor weighs in I don't see this going anywhere (and an editor already weighed in and disagreed with you last time you brought up your "distrowatch doesn't matter" argument already). - Aoidh (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I am here to discuss the edit. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

CodeCat asked for a third-opinion, and reading over the discussion I think we both made out points as clearly as we could, at this point we're just going to end up going in circles. So to avoid any unnecessary stress that I seem to be causing CodeCat (not my intention), I think it's best if we wait for a fresh opinion from someone who hasn't commented to see if we can work towards some form of consensus and then move from there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that I bear part of the blame here. I should not have reverted JohnGoodName's edit in the first place. I should have copy-pasted the deleted content into a template here on the Talk page and tried to propose alternative ways of presenting the information so that the sources could have been to re-added to the article. I had just recently added the Linux Mint article to my Watchlist and User:JohnGoodName's edit looked like vandalism so I reverted it. Constant back-and-forth reversions, however, are disruptive to the whole community and should not continue. I don't think anyone deserves to be prosecuted at this point. We should just chill, be reasonable, and discuss the issue here on the Talk page, even if that meant that the information was not in the article during this time. Side note: It would be easier to follow the discussion if the participants used something like Template:Talkquote to propose concrete alternatives. Draft your proposal in your sandbox and present it when you feel it's ready, even if it took a few days. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I can see the consensus is in favor of clarifying the otherwise misleading DistroWatch section. To be specific, both CodeCat and I support the inclusion of the clarifying information. Also, judging by the comment above Dodi 8238 does not oppose inclusion and may even support it. Despite this, the user Aoidh is continually reverting the edit and is also refusing to communicate on the Talk page at this time. Aoidh has already been reported for edit warring regarding this matter once, and it is possible that they intend to continue this behavior. JohnGoodName (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You see quite incorrectly, I"m afraid. Nothing has changed since the previous consensus, and comments about "refusing the communicate on the talk page" is wildly inaccurate, to the point that I'm honestly wondering how you're coming up with these ideas. A declined edit-warring report doesn't say much, so that's also not much to comment on. So long as you continue your disruptive editing, it will be reverted, and if you continue you will be reported for edit-warring. Discuss, and get a consensus, seeing as how the previous consensus was against you; waiting a few months and trying again to push this inappropriate and WP:UNDUE unsourced content isn't going to cut it, especially when no policy or guideline based reason to include it has been given, while the policies and guidelines that do address this show that it doesn't belong. A disclaimer should not be longer than the statement, especially when the disclaimer is not supported by a single reliable source in any way; I cannot think of any example more WP:UNDUE than this. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
By now it seems like WP:OWN on Aoidh's part, the way he's put himself in charge over "protecting" the article from edits he doesn't like. CodeCat (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you were going to read things before citing them, considering your previous disruptive behavior, but it seems not. Get a consensus for your preferred edit, I don't see how it's that difficult. You've been pointed to WP:DR before, that you rely on name-calling rather than discussion is telling. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Since you seem unwilling or unable to use WP:DRN as was suggested to you by multiple editors at the WP:ANI discussion you opened, I have done so. - Aoidh (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Aoidh, please explain this to me. If CodeCat is in favor and I am in favor then that is two editors. If you are against that is one editor. If 2 is bigger than 1, is the consensus not against you? Seriously, please explain why you think the consensus is in favor of your position? JohnGoodName (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Your math is a bit off; this isn't the first time you've made this edit, and isn't the first time it's been reverted. Ignoring the fact that consensus is not a vote and this a "2:1" is not how that works, @Seraphimblade: previously commented against your argument, so it's 2:2, and not a consensus even by your logic (and even more so by WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus was against you then, and there is nothing to show that consensus has changed, a single-purpose account's disruptive editing doesn't make a consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you have some kind of objection to assuming good faith? Your threats and insults do not add to the discussion. Let me break it down for you, real simple. Sometimes when a piece of information is correct, such as the DistroWatch statement without any qualification, it can still be wrong because it contains what's called an error by omission. You see, without any qualifier (even a two word one like "excluding variants") a regular reader perusing the article would not realize that "Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu" doesn't mean that more people are using Linux Mint than Ubuntu, only that more people are using Linux Mint than vanilla Ubuntu only. As far as I know, misleading information on Wikipedia is considered a bad thing. Fair point about Seraphimblade, but that still does not establish Consensus in your favor. If your consensus is so strong then why do I only see you reverting to it. Go ahead and keep edit warring on this issue and reversing my edits, but the statement you keep reverting to is wrong and so, lacking a consensus in your favor, I will continue to either qualify the statement or revert back to the status quo, which does not include the statement at all. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Now, once again, we've come to the part where you accuse me of things such as not assuming good faith; I never suggested anything like that. There are several things wrong with what you've said; first of all, you're assuming that the statement is excluding variants; no reliable source supports this, and the numbers at DistroWatch do not either, so that's patently false. Second, saying it could be construed to mean more people use Linux Mint, I don't see how "Linux Mint surpassed Ubuntu as the most viewed distribution on DistroWatch" could possibly be construed as such, that's not an argument to support adding this disclaimer because that edit wouldn't address that, even if that were an issue. Third, you are the one that needs to establish consensus to have your change placed in the article, without that, the previous version is kept, prior to your edit. That is the WP:STATUSQUO version, and the version which had a prior consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────JohnGoodname, edit-warring is not a substitute for discussion. Your "note" is misleading and has no place in the article. Get a consensus, or it will be reverted no matter how many times you add it, it's as simple as that. You cannot keep edit-warring and hope that your inappropriate edit will stay; it won't. If your edit is appropriate, a consensus wouldn't be difficult, so please discuss instead of edit-warring, because you've ceased discussion but continue to try to insert the edit, despite knowing full well that it's not going to stay. - Aoidh (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Israel controversy again[edit]

I recently restored the anti-Israel controversy section. I updated it with new developments and additional citations. I believe the merit of the section speaks for itself, especially with the new developments that have occurred and been documented. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnGoodName has been trying to force this back into the article, even though he knows well that this is a disputed issue and no consensus exists to include it. He took part in the previous discussion, after all. So I'll reiterate that this should not be included unless there is a clear consensus for it, and definitely should not be pushed through despite protests. WP:BRD applies here, and it's not "Bold, revert, redo" for a reason. CodeCat (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please respond with logical arguments rather than accusations of bad faith. As I said, important new developments have occurred, and new notable sources have been published. This includes additional comments on the matter by the founder and lead developer of Linux Mint in which he seems to place more importance on the events than you do. JohnGoodName (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Then that calls for examining the new sources in a discussion. It doesn't mean that the consensus has suddenly changed, and you know that. So don't just put it back verbatim, thinking that we'll suddenly all have changed our minds. It's up to you to change our minds by discussing it here, not by putting it in again and reverting anyone who disagrees. That's why I could not assume good faith; it can't be assumed indefinitely.
So, please present here what has changed since the last discussion. If, as you say, what you have is more sources for the same claims, all dated to the same time frame, then I don't think anything has really changed. It's still a WP:UNDUE issue. You have to consider that a few sources that cover this issue may seem significant, but news sites and blogs continuously consider hundreds of matters over a year. To put that in perspective: how many news coverage has there been about this issue compared to, say, coverage about any other Mint-related topic? Probably very little, and certainly not enough to dedicate a whole section to it. That's just blowing it all out of proportion, which is the hallmark of WP:UNDUE-related problems. From what I can see about the sources, then if this is included at all (if at all; I'm still not sure that it's even notable or relevant enough for that), it should only receive attention in the form of a single sentence. Certainly no more. CodeCat (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Limiting the section to one sentence would remove the context important to understanding the events. Looking through the history it seems that more editors have been in favor of including the section than not. It isn't reasonable to expect important developments in the history of Linux Mint to be as widely reported as the war in Iraq. It is a niche subject to start with and it was even more niche at the time these events occurred; it is actually quite widely reported considering this and if this was a section about a new release then I'm sure you would consider the sources provided more than sufficient. Try to think about it from the perspective of someone that does not know anything about Linux Mint, do you think they would consider these events to hold historical significance to the project? Do you not think that this has had an effect on the project? Do you not think that these events will inform how Lefebvre guides the project going forward? JohnGoodName (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
People have supported it in the past, but consensus can change (at least according to WP:CONSENSUS it can). The last-formed consensus was not to include it, so that's the starting point we need to work from. Consensus, as far as I know, isn't assumed to have changed unless that is shown in some way through discussion and what editors do with the article (that is, a revert like mine means there's still disagreement).
I don't think they really hold much historical significance. Not compared to the many other milestones that the project reached, like contesting Ubuntu for popularity, creating its own Desktop Environment, the MintBox and so on. That's the WP:UNDUE issue I am talking about. From my perspective there is really not enough coverage of other, much more noteworthy points about Linux Mint, to warrant dedicating a whole named section to this small controversy that blew over pretty soon. I'm also considering relevance here. This article is about the distribution, yet this controversy was about something that Lefebvre said. Of course he said it in relation to the distribution, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's worth including in this article. It would be better suited to an article about Clement Lefebvre himself, if there is one. CodeCat (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The tenacity of those opposed to inclusion in their purging of the section from the article does not establish a consensus. Many of those that were in favor of inclusion did not want to have to wage a war over it. I agree that the history could be expanded upon with other events, even including other controversies. While I agree that this information should be included in any future article about Lefebvre, this event is inextricably tied to the distribution itself as is Lefebvre. The initial statements were made on the official Linux Mint blog, as were the numerous retractions. He said it as the voice of the distribution, which he continues to be. The thankfully aborted politicization of a popular Linux distribution is a big deal, not only for the distribution itself but for the software community as a whole. JohnGoodName (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
But as I argued, the sources don't make it as big a deal as you do. And we have to follow the sources in this. And as for your argument that "Many of those that were in favor of inclusion did not want to have to wage a war over it", don't you think I feel the same way towards you? I don't want to wage a war over not including it, but the tenacity of those in favour of inclusion in their re-insertion does not establish a consensus either. You see, it goes both ways. I've made my arguments, I haven't found yours very convincing. If you're not convinced by mine either then that's fine, but we're at a standstill. Don't mistake that for consensus though. If this discussion dies down with no conclusion, and I see the section pop back up a few months from now, I'll remove it again just like I did this time, until there is a clear consensus among all involved parties (the more the better!) about including it. CodeCat (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, but I hope that you recognize that not only did I bring the section back, but I brought it back with further developments and additional citations. Do you really think that the section is less notable than all the other details already included in the article? Is the section being held to an unfairly high standard for inclusion only because it regards a controversy? You may not agree that there is a consensus for inclusion, but you must also see that there is no consensus for exclusion. I implore you to reconsider your position and let the section stand as some people clearly think it is important. JohnGoodName (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)