Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 12

Article lead graphics
These graphics were made by User:ScotXW and added my him to the article. I removed them because the article subject is GNU/Linux naming controversy and these graphics are not relevant to the article. He reverted my removal of it, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Does anyone think these belong here? - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As with many of the images the editor has created and added to irrelevant articles, these images might be useful for an article, but this one isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose both images as largely off-topic. And I agree with Aoidh that they would be useful in other technical articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's little to no reason for these images to be used in this article. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing quote
No matter your stance on the controversy, you have to admit that "Linux" is far more ambiguous. In the quote from Linus we see him say "Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux", where "Linux" refers to the same thing as GNU/Linux - the OS. The redundancy is more clear with the other terminology: "a GNU distribution of GNU/Linux". Regardless of why one may think he said this, I propose a small modification: "a GNU distribution of Linux [sic]" Paradox (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite clear without that, and, in fact adding "sic" indicates that the statement is unclear or contains an error, when it doesn't. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that quote is confusing at all, especially given that "distribution of Linux" is very clearly a specific thing, not an ambiguous term that could refer solely to the kernel. Adding sic implies that there's something inaccurate in the comment, and there isn't, so there's no reason to add that to the quote. - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with others that people familiar with distributions are unlikely to be confused by this quote, but I replaced these occurrences with "[the Linux operating system]". --Chealer (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and I removed that - there is a clear consensus here to not alter the quote. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree we should not be altering a quote, while the original is redundant it is not unclear. Chillum 16:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
A rewrite of the lead was reverted by Ahunt, who claims the new version "makes [the article] very POV, takes sides and no longer complies with WP:MOS". I will restore the new version unless these claims are substantiated. --Chealer (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede of the article shouldn't start by explaining the position of the FSF and that it's simply a matter of "no single name having managed to make consensus". - Aoidh (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The new version doesn't start by explaining the FSF's position any more than the old.
 * I see your point about the consensus sentence. Sorry, I will amend it. --Chealer (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted it is that your new version didn't comply with WP:LEAD in stating the issues clearly and in a balanced manner or the lead bolding requirement or anything else. I also agree with User:Aoidh, that your new version started the article now presenting the FSF version as if it was the only side in this controversy and presented it as the correct version, introducing distinct pro-FSF POV and violating WP:NPOV. Your statement "no single name having managed to make consensus" is patently false as the article explains. The term "Linux" is used far more often in both the general and tech press than "GNU/Linux". Also moving the article to "issue" over "controversy" is an attempt to defend the FSF position, by downplaying the significance of this. It is a controversy, not merely some minor issue. Overall the previous version of the article was much better, conformed to the WP:MOS and NPOV, hence the need to revert it. To introduce these changes of even part of them into the article again you need to present some convincing arguments here and gain a consensus. So please go ahead and make your case here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think the new version doesn't state the issues as clearly or in a manner as balanced as the previous one, or that it fails to "comply" with WP:LEAD in other ways, explain how. There is no "lead bolding requirement".
 * I don't think the new version presents the FSF as the only side and as the correct version, but if it does, that was a pre-existing problem (note that I did not actually rewrite the lede, I simply performed a big modification).
 * Where would the article explain that the statement would be patently false?
 * I'm not sure I understand your speculation on my motives, but I never said there was no controversy, nor that this issue is minor. Please assume good faith. GNU/Linux naming controversy will keep redirecting to this article, and will still cover the "debate" or "controversy" (the latter seems a bit strong to me, but English is not my native language). The idea is to start by covering the issue, before covering its importance or the conflict between those with opposed views. --Chealer (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with here, 's changes do not help NPOV and actually hurt it, and also fail completely to summarize the controversy succinctly. I have reverted accordingly. Gain WP:CONSENSUS before making more changes. Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure my changes were intended to help NPOV. The main point was to avoid sensationalism. If you think the changes hurt NPOV, please specify how. As for summarizing succinctly, I agree the new version is significantly longer. I think the second paragraph has some value, but I think it could be removed. --Chealer (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of Chealer's reluctance to discuss and instead edit-war, I have tagged the article for neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are encouraged to discuss the issue, rather than claiming I would have a "reluctance to discuss and instead edit-war" and tagging the whole article as biased when you haven't indicated a single place which would be. --Chealer (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed both the current restored version and also User:Chealer's previous version. The current version is much better, as User:Chealer's was not only less clear and a poorer summary, but biased towards supporting the FSF POV on this controversy. The current restored version should stand. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that answers my comment, but if you think the new version supports the POV of the FSF or that of any party, please explain how. --Chealer (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. It's quite clear that there is more support for the original title (GNU/Linux naming controversy), so the article should not have been moved to "GNU/Linux naming issue" (and has been moved back during the RM. Number   5  7  12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming issue → GNU/Linux naming controversy – Let's start the conversation here. "Controversy" is a much more descriptive term for this article. "Issue" sounds like a circumlocution to avoid saying that it is controversial. There would be no article at all if it were not controversial. Let's not use WP:WEASEL words when clearer terms exist and do not violate NPOV. Nobody is going to violate neutrality by describing this as a controversy. It is what it is. What do the WP:RS say? Elizium23 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Elizium23,
 * As previously explained, there is no problem with referring to this as a "controversy"; in fact, GNU/Linux naming controversy will remain a redirect to this article. Again, the reason why this was renamed is that the controversy wouldn't exist without the naming issue, so the controversy constitutes a subtopic. Unless we want to have 2 separate articles, the article should keep covering the topic as a whole, and use a title which reflects that. Titling the whole topic per the subtopic gave the issue a sensationalist tone. --Chealer (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show, with reference to WP:RS, how there are two topics and one is a subtopic of the other. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think the controversy does not depend on the issue, you're free to name this just "GNU/Linux naming", which is shorter, embraces both topics and still avoids the conflictual tone. --Chealer (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the renaming of the article because this same move was attempted just a few days ago and reverted, so it's not an uncontested move. Please open an WP:RM and get a consensus before moving the article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Since this is an RM I'll comment here, though it's a bit unnecessary at this point. I've reverted the article back to it's original title per WP:STATUSQUO, as the page move was an undiscussed, contested page move that was attempted twice in the past few days. If the page should be moved, it should be discussed first instead of moving it a third time without consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a "controversy", not a mere "issue". Naming it as an "issue" is downplaying its significance and siding with the FSF in this subject and thus is a POV title. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, neither is a good name for the article. The article is full of ___, the article creates a hyper-inflated image of a problem where none exists. It should simply be called Naming of Linux- and GNU-based operating systems, or similar, in a neutral manner. Where is the real controversy? Every producer of an operating system has the right to name it and distribute it anyway they please, as long as they comply with licensing terms of the source code. I bet R.S. has never lost a night of sleep over the naming, nor has anyone else. The cited cases of "confusion" are simply attempts in the market place to gain or defend economic interests by any means, legal, marketing or otherwise. The article reads like typical WP POV playground for those who have nothing better to do. Kbrose (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC) PS:  Under a neutral name, as suggested, a more intelligent representation can ensue that examines the naming of the various operating systems that have adopted Linux as their kernel, or those that have combined Linux with other userland environments, such as Android. Kbrose (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is fair to say that Richard Stallman is not concerned about this controversy. He has written extensively on it, spoken to projects and groups about it, and, even in recent years, when he speaks publicly it is still part of his standard speech, more than 20 years after the controversy started. If anything he is probably the one person keeping it alive. That alone I think shows the enduring quality of this controversy and makes it worthy of an article. I like your idea about an article that examines operating systems that use the Linux kernel, but we seem to already have that at Linux distribution. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That only emphasizes my point of the economic aspect. He seems to make a living of it to stay relevant. So perhaps I stated it wrongly, he is the only one who loses sleep. As many, I have used GNU software since their beginnings, and Linux since it was first released, and I have never run across anyone that has cared about what it was called exactly. Your experience may vary, but it seems only a media event. Kbrose (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you may well be right that keeping this controversy alive for more than two decades is economic in nature, in that it may result in donations and such, but I don't think that diminishes the notability of the subject and, in fact, might just enhance it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While it might be true that no more than one person has lost a night of sleep over this issue, I would not bet that RMS never did. RMS is surely the person who cares most about this issue, and the person which would gain the most from his recommended name being chosen.
 * The naming is problematic. --Chealer (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another move attempt
Despite our consensus above that this article should remain at GNU/Linux naming controversy, User:Chealer just moved it again to GNU/Linux naming and I moved it back. You need a clear consensus to move this. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus "that this article should remain at GNU/Linux naming controversy". This article was only renamed once to "GNU/Linux naming". Clear or not, consensus is unneeded. --Chealer (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming controversy → GNU/Linux naming – The initial problem which got me involved in this article is its sensationalist tone. Removing "controversy" fixes the issue in the title. It also shortens, and most importantly, it fully reflects the article's scope. To avoid further confusion, I think the above sections suffice to show that stating a controversy exists about GNU/Linux naming is not an exaggeration. I am perfectly fine with this article covering this controversy. I am also fine with having an article titled "GNU/Linux naming controversy" if it merely covers that controversy, but I am convinced that a single article is currently sufficient. Chealer (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose it is about the issues around the naming use of "GNU/Linux", it is not about the various ways to name Linux. The proposed title fails to describe the scope of the article. Instead, if "controversy" is disliked, we should return to the last name GNU/Linux naming issues or GNU/Linux naming issue ; but I see no reason not to use "controversy", since it is an FSF-Stallman generated controversy. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How would this fail to describe the scope of the article? I feel like I'm repeating myself, but nobody says there is no controversy about GNU/Linux naming. The problem is that this article does not merely cover that. --Chealer (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a name article. This clearly does not cover the various names of Linux. Look on the internet at all the various ways that Linux is named. This article does not cover the various ways to name Linux. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This articles treats the names referring to GNU/Linux. --Chealer (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It only covers the differences between "GNU/Linux" and "Linux", it most definitely does not cover the naming of Linux, through all the other forms that are used to name linux. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE the 1 February 2015 requested move dealt with just this issue, and found that "GNU/Linux naming controversy" was the correct name, and that there is a controversy. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That requested move was actually a comparison between "GNU/Linux naming controversy" and "GNU/Linux naming issue". --Chealer (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That requested move covered in its discussion why "controversy" is appropriate. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - as I noted above we have already considered whether this article should be moved or not and the consensus was to keep it at "GNU/Linux naming controversy". The lack of acceptance of consensus by User:Chealer is getting quite disruptive, as is also their attempts to reduce this controversy to benefit the party they support in the dispute. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous consideration preferred the current title to "GNU/Linux naming issue", and there was no consensus. Which attempts are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ping participants in the last requested move who have not already participated: -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The proposed name is problematic for a few reasons. For one, it comes off as an incomplete title. "GNU/Linux naming"? Naming what? If the proposed title is meant to suggest that the scope of the article is merely about how Linux is named (which it isn't), "GNU/Linux naming" wouldn't be the title to use. Chealer's comment acknowledges the controversy aspect and that this article covers it, so I'm not really seeing a rationale for changing the title in the RM. - Aoidh (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede reversion
What "established consensus" did you refer to when reverting the lede's revision? --Chealer (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See "Lead rewrite" above, where you tried this same text and everyone was opposed to it but you. You do not have consensus to revert to your version. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have seen that section already. You'll want to re-read it; it has not established a consensus for the old lede. --Chealer (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly it does establish a consensus. We discussed these exact same changes you made and no one agreed with you. All other editors participating there speciafically did not support your changes and found them POV and biased. Nothing has changed and your lack of acceptance of consensus and continued attempts to introduce bias into this article are not supported. This is getting well beyond a content dispute and into disruption, but let's leave it a few days and see if anyone supports your changes here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Chealer, even if there wasn't a blatant consensus for the old version, the old versions stands per WP:STATUSQUO until you get a consensus for your proposed edit, which as Ahunt points out, you did not get. Consensus is against your proposed changes, so please stop reinserting it until you get a consensus supporting your proposed changes. - Aoidh (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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


 * That is a good question. The scope of the article is specifically about the use of the term "GNU/Linux", which the Softpedia ref cited shows that Stallman is no longer using. To my mind that indicates that this specific controversy is over. Now you could expand the scope of the article to include the use of the name GNU operating system, but that is already another article. Personally I prefer to leave this article as a limited topic about the use of the term "GNU/Linux", call it "case closed" and leave it at that, rather than try to address a moving target. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, gnu.org does still use GNU/Linux on its website, as seen on its main page and the List of Free GNU/Linux distributions page. I think it should probably take more than this single softpedia piece to change it to the past tense, when all other sources still seem to support it being an active thing. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this change seems to be recent and top-down driven, it may take a while for the webmasters of those sites to get them caught up. I am sure there will be some organizational internal debates as to what to say on the websites as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)