Talk:Linux Mint/Archive Israel-Palestine Controversy

Palestine - Israel issue

Someone added this to the first part of the article:

In an unusual and controversial move for a Free and Open Source Software project, the lead developer requests that those who support the state of Israel and its policies neither use nor donate to Linux Mint.

Do you think it approppriate? Do we have the right to say it is controversial? without any sources to back it up? After all, the developer has all the right to express his views in his blog, or even in the distro blog... SF007 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it should be added to the Critical Reception section, as it fits in there. We can cite the blog post, but not express opinions. Something like: "On the 2nd of May, Lead Developer of Linux Mint posted on his blog about his opinion on the Israeli/Palestine war, and asked people who supported the actions of the Israeli government to not donate to or use the Linux Mint project. This sparked many comments in the blog post and across various Linux based forums and sites." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Marcus (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems to indicate that this is the developer's personal opinion. The website doesn't mention anything about it. The developer has indicated that he would not make any changes related to that issue within the distribution and the other developers didn't support his opinion. I don't think this should be mentioned here. It relates to him, not to the distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to mention it because it is very controversial for the Free and Open Source Software, and because it was in the blog of the distro. I think it is a very important thing to know for the linux community. For instance, I do not want to support or adhere a linux distro that in order to use it I have to think or believe what other person think or believe. Even if what that person think or believe is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulpianus (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lead Developer change the wording of the blog, because originally he request that people that support the state of Israel or its policies does not use Linux Mint. Immediately, I uninstall it from my computers because it is unacceptable to limit the use of a software because of political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulpianus (talk • contribs) 07:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the other developers? Shouldn't the developers opinions be mentioned on their respective Wikipedia pages? This has no relevance here as the distribution has no political color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clement is the main creator of Linux Mint and HE MADE IT POLITICAL by posting on the front page of the official Linux Mint Website. How is asking people to not use your Linx distribution because of certain political beliefs NOT relevant to it?! And the second to last person was right, he did change the wording when he moved the story to his blog. From another post he even hints that some of the developers are no longer working on the project with him because of this.174.20.6.244 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, man, but when you ask that people with certain political views not use or contribute to your distribution, you just painted it bright red with political color. This "Gee, what did I do that was so wrong?" shtick is pretty lame. Either this political discrimination is his desire, or it is not. If he cannot stand by it, he should retract it. But he didn't. In fact, he said (and says) that this was VERY important to him. If it's that important to him to discriminate against contributers, then stop saying it's no big deal. It's his stance-- he should defend it. And he does. So stop going against HIS desires! --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should state things as they are. These opinions are personal, the developer acknowledged that. He also acknowledged the fact that there were no restrictions or conditions linked to his political opinions in the licensing of the distribution. When people pointed out that he posted on the wrong blog, he agreed and moved the post. So this is clearly personal and it relates to him. If you're so opposed to what he said, then go ahead and make a Wikipedia page about him. The distribution doesn't state any of this, so why are you trying to make it political here on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This IS the way things are. The reasons are clear in my edit. Please read it. I have provided documentation of all of the important statements. The lead developer asked that those who support the Israeli government not use or support (that includes development) Mint. He put it on the Mint blog. He moved the exact statement to the personal blog and left links on the Mint blog. This has NOTHING to do with his opinions on the middle east. He ASKED that people of a certain political Ilk NOT contribute to the MINT PROJECT. Had he not done that, my edit would not be appropriate. However he did do that. People who are looking for information on Mint should know what the lead developer has requested and still requests with links at the Mint site. Why are you trying to hide this? It's very dishonest of you to dismiss the lead developer's requests regarding the development of his distribution! Perhaps this information can be included in a different way or place on this wiki, but it definitely deserves mention! I'm afraid it is you that is not stating things the way they are. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to give this distribution a political color when the lead developer himself acknowledged the personal nature of his comments and opinions. Why don't you follow the developer's example and publish your opinions on your own blog? Political ideas have nothing to do with the distribution. Lefebvre understood that and moved his post away, you need to do the same and stop using Wikipedia to push your own agenda. The truth is simple: the community, the team, and now even the main developer have made it clear that politics and Linux Mint shouldn't mix. They've cleared the blog of all political content, why can't you respect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What you write is factually untrue. Political comments are still on the Mint blog, which is on the search portal. In that there are links to the personal blog where he says he does not want money or help for anyone who supports the Israeli government. I don't want a blog. I'm not pushing an agenda (at least not one related to the mideast). I agree to some extent with his feelings on the subject. That is NOT the point! If the Mint development teams feels that Mint and politics shouldn't mix, then why is the lead developer of MINT saying he doesn't want any help with MINT based on political views? Do you understand why this desire of the lead developer makes MINT inherently political? Would you defend him if he said it was his "personal belief" that some other group not contribute to MINT? There is a clear difference between saying "It is my personal belief that one group is doing something wrong," versus saying "It is my personal belief that one group is doing something wrong-- AND I DON"T WANT THEM TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE LINUX MINT DISTRIBUTION! Do you not see the difference? I mean, it's not particularly subtle or nuanced... --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

His opinions are written here: http://eclelef.blogspot.com/2009/05/palestine_03.html. As you can see he doesn't even mention Linux Mint. He says that he doesn't want to receive money or help, how is that making Linux Mint political? I tell you, it doesn't. It makes HIM politically engaged, and as his the leader of this project, it troubles YOU. If you want to be objective about this, you're going to have to say things as they are. These political opinions are his, not Linux Mint's, so if you want to mention them you're going to have to create a Wikipedia page for him. Politics have nothing to do with this distribution. The community made that clear and the developer acknowledged it by removing any opinion of his from the official blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Before it was MOVED to his personal blog, it clearly stated that he didn't want anyone who didn't share his view to use Linux Mint. That DIRECTLY RELATES to Linux Mint. I linked as a reference the page as it originally was (possible with Google's cached page feature). The wiki quote as it is now is exactly how it was when originally posted on the front page of linuxmint.com. Just because it was moved doesn't mean it never happened.174.20.6.244 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Why on earth would anyone send money or help to Clement Lefebvre other than to support Mint? Are you trying to say that he wants all those supporters of the Israeli government that were sending him money and help for no reason to now stop? Is that really what you want to hang your hat on? I'm not troubled in the least by his politics or views. I'm not Jewish (not even religious in any way), very neutral on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and I supported Mint financially for almost a year. Since you're posting the link to his blog, why don't you read his comment that I was a long-time Mint supporter and will be missed? I'm telling you I like Clem and I like Mint. No agenda based on personal differences. I do have a difference with him as to whether one should request that a certain group not contribute to an open-source project based on political views. That is EXTREMELY controversial as evidenced by the fact that it generated about 800 posts in a day and a half and significantly fractured the community surrounding one of the top three linux distributions. And you think that doesn't belong on the Mint Wiki? As I said above, he doesn't back away from these statements, so why do you put words in his mouth and say it does not involve Mint? He explicitly ASKED that people consider their support for Israel before they get involved in Mint! It is quite clear that it is you that has the agenda and are not looking at things objectively. I'm simply stating things the way they are. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that only ONE PERSON thinks it should not be mentioned as opposed to the FOUR that do. Whatever happened to majority rules. And that same person keeps deleting any mention of it. My additions were simply putting his own words with no bias one way or the other. I have no bias on the actual politics, but I do object to someone making a Linx distribution political and asking groups of people not to use it. You'd have to be blind to not see how it is relevant.174.20.6.244 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

According to The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), Linux Mint is no longer a "free" distribution. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.6.244 (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not stating what he says, you're stating what he once said. As for the license it is "free": http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=775#comment-7432, http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=775#comment-7742. Apparently you asked about this and got a clear answer. It looks to me like you just don't want to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.176.220 (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

@174.20.6.244, That is a bit of original research, it says "The LICENSE must not discriminate......", and the Linux Mint license does not discriminate anyone.... Linux mint was not 100% free anyway, since it includes flash.... SF007 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What Clem did was he asked people who supported the Israeli government not to use or help LM. He now no longer asks that. Since Clem does not have his own wiki page, if this info is going anywhere, it should be here. --Old Marcus (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It happened, as such should be included, this is an encyclopedia, you cannot say because it is no longer so it shouldn't be here, otherwise we'd have no articles as everything always changes! The edits should go in, it happened, it is relevant, therefore it should be included. If Linux Mint has it's own wikipedia page (developed by one main man clem), and that main man then makes political comments on Linux Mints offical blog (before then moving them to his own and retracting some of the statement), it still happened and he is the guy in charge, therefore the whole project becomes political. The only person arguing doesn't have a leg to stand on. Someone put it in, and if it keeps getting removed try and get an admin to lock it there. Gazab1 (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The main disagreement here is whether or not the project itself is political. The community said no, the team said no, hell even the lead dev said no! So you can go ahead and mention what he said, but you can't use Wikipedia to give Linux Mint a political color that it doesn't have. I think the solution here is to make a page for him and to put that political crap where it belongs, on his personal page. Politics has nothing to do with this distribution, everybody acknowledged that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailytruck23 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your analysis is at odds with many pages on Wikipedia. I'm sure that you would agree that the Ford Motor Company does not have any positive opinion on Nazis even though it's founder did. There is no information about Nazis on the Ford Motor Company website, and Ford cars have no opinions on Nazis. So that should mean that information about Ford Motor Company's alleged Nazi collaboration 60 years ago doesn't belong on the current Ford Motor Company wiki page, right?
Or diamonds-- they're just a natural mineral found in the earth. Diamonds are not political and do not have opinions on war in Africa, even though those who mine them do. So that would mean that information about revolutionary groups in Africa doesn't belong on the wiki page for diamonds, right? There are many, many other examples of this.
As of now, the comments and links to the personal blog are indeed removed from the Mint site. But does that really make a difference? If the head of the Wikipedia project made a blog on a personal site where he asks that blacks or Jews or gays or whatever NOT contribute to Wikipedia, but did not include that information (or have links to it) on the Wikipedia website, would you really say that that information should not be included somewhere on the Wikipedia wiki page? I think you know that it would (and should) be included in some way.
I certainly know why others are trying to bury this unfortunate and very notable incident as it has been very harmful to the distribution. But I don't think it's fair to give Mint this free pass when it is clear that the (controversial and notable) personal opinions of the founders/leaders of companies are virtually always included (in some form-- under history, controversies, link to another wiki page, etc.) on the wiki page for that company.
SImply saying the distribution itself is not political so it should not be included is silly. Rather than persisting in removing the information, why not help to find a way to include it that is fair and neutral. That would be constructive!
By the way, I have not been making any of the recent edits. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The post was recognized as a mistake by Lefebvre (http://www.linuxmint.com/blog/?p=775). He also explains on his personal blog that his initial post didn't reflect his opinion. He retracted his request and confirmed that the distribution was indeed open to everyone, he stated his neutrality in regards to races and religions, he underlined the personal nature of his comments and he apologized for letting people think they had to agree with him. You can try to be historically accurate about an event which has no historical signification but if you do, you're also going to have to say all that. And on a page dedicated to describe a Linux distribution, that's a lot of content related to politics. Far more than what's ever been posted on the distribution's blog. As an illustration, their last post is number 806. That was 1 post, and it was retracted. That shows the place politics have on it. We're not talking about hiring nazis here, or enslaving people to find diamonds, we're talking about someone who saw one too many documentaries, got touched by the violence and suffering in the Middle East and posted on the wrong blog. And here we are on Wikipedia trying to bring Justice and make someone pay for what he did? What is the goal exactly? To warn people about what? That this distribution is politically engaged? That Jews or Israelis are not welcome? I don't get it. I can understand the fact that you want to be historically accurate and retrace the fact, but what's the significance of it? And if it's to warn people before they use the distribution, then it's to warn them about what? I read your comments as well and apparently you're leaving this distribution. This is not just about historical accuracy is it? You're here to drive away people and to hurt the project I guess. What is your motivation exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.240.235 (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter weather he retracted it or not is that he, being in change of linux mint, posted on the OFFICIAL site and told a certain group of people that they were not to use linux mint. the article lists linux mint as "free software" which it no longer would be if suddenly not everybody is welcome to use it. according to what Clement said it basically translate to "if you use linux mint, you support palestine". yes he removed the story, but he never retracted it except to say that it is his own opinion. it was only because of pressure from the other developers on the project that he gave in anyways. I'm starting to think that YOU are Clement himself, because you are being a little bit ridiculous and you seem to be ignoring that a neutral compromise could be made. also, somebody DID try to make an article just for Clement and it ALSO got deleted. For some reason your attitude is that of someone who's opinion is unanimous, but clearly due to the amount of edits by numerous people and the length of this discussion, IT IS NOT. Kiwisoup (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Great! Now we're getting somewhere, Mr. Unsigned. You say he "retracted" the offending statement about not wanting help from supporters of the Israeli government, so none of this episode should be included here. I'm not sure that's right since, as pointed out by others, it's still a historical fact, but it's not totally unreasonable. But wait-- did he retract the statement? Really? Are you sure about that? Please go to his personal website (http://eclelef.blogspot.com/). Please look at the post titled "Palestine." What does it say? Do you call that "retracted?"
If you really have read my posts there then you know why I think this is very relevant to the distribution, and you will see that, despite repeated attempts on my part to explain to him why that (still standing) plea remains linked to the distribution and why it should be retracted, he will not retract it. It is certainly his right to have that opinion, but I practically begged him to stop linking that opinion to support for Mint (for the sake of the distribution). Do you see any response where he retracted that link? As in "I stand by my support for the Palestinians and criticism of the Iraeli government, but not only were my comments on this posted in the wrong place, it was wrong to link them to contributions of money or help for an open source software project and I unequivocally DISAVOW that aspect of my comments and HAVE REMOVED them from the Mint website and this blog?"
No. There is some equivocating about how he can't stop that group from contributing or he doesn't care if they contribute, or he won't check to see where contributions come from. There are numerous apologies (including the one you linked to) for placing it in the wrong place or mixing the two issues (which is not the same as linking them). There are explanations that he was taken with anger. There are explanations as to how it made him feel good to express his opinions. There are statements that he doesn't care if others disagree. There are statements that, if Mint takes a hit, then so be it. There is an ambiguous statement that people who disagree with him on Israel are "welcome" to contribute to Mint (which very lawyerly does not negate his REQUEST THAT THEY NOT contribute). There is pretty much every statement one could possibly make-- except a clear retraction of the original statement. And that statement is still there! I think that means, by definition, it's not retracted. How do YOU define retracted? If the statement is not retracted, then according to your own logic it is not unreasonable for it to be mentioned here. So that must mean we are now in agreement! (I bet not-- your likely going to wonder yet again why the fact that this is a personal opinion does not negate its relevance to Mint.)
If after reading my comments here and on Clem's personal blog you STILL don't understand why this is relevant to Mint, then I don't know what to tell you. If you do not understand how the Ford and diamonds examples pertain to this issue, I'm not going to explain the concept of consistency to you. If you think I'm trying to punish someone for a statement rather than pointing out that that the statement WAS made and STILL stands, then you do not understand the concept of history. All this willful ignorance is beginning to wear me out (probably by design), but I'll try one more time to explain:
Clem Lefebvre, the creator and lead developer of Linux Mint, made a statement on the Linux Mint website that it is HIS DESIRE that supporters of the Israeli government NOT SUPPORT or USE Linux Mint, and the statement said that this was very important to him. A firestorm of controversy ensued, and he was forced to move the statement to a personal blog. Although, in subsequent discussions, he has backpedaled on the statement and changed it to state that he does not want MONEY or HELP (for Mint) from supporters of the Israeli government (he no longer requests that they not USE Mint), he has not retracted the substantive nature of the original request and it is STILL THERE. A Google search of "Linux Mint Palestine" will show that the open source development world has noticed this story and has begun reporting/discussing this interjection of politics into the open source movement. This is a historical and current fact, and I think it should be mentioned somewhere, somehow, some way in wikipedia, and readers of the Linux Mint wiki page should see or be linked to that mention.
Does THAT clarify my motivation? I have used DOCUMENTED FACTS to establish that by YOUR PREMISE this should be mentioned here. Now that I have established MY motivation (at length), how about you now tell all of us YOUR motivation? Why would you cling to this very shaky logic to try to bolster a very weak argument? Do you have some interest in Mint that you are not disclosing here? Pray tell!
BTW, as evidence that I am not some troll on an agenda, please note that I have not edited anything on the page after I was flagged for "vandalism." In fact, after that flagging, I actually undid my own previous edit. I have no plans to edit the Mint page again until a moderator or editor of some type settles this issue. I'm just making my case here, and I believe there are more here that agree with me than with you. In case you didn't get the relevance of THAT as well, this is a community-based encyclopedia.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You two are being very direct. I can create an account and use a silly name the same way you do if that makes you happy. I'm not the only one refusing your edits, check the history tab. The only thing that STILL stands is written on his blog: "I don’t want any money or help coming from people who support the actions of the Israeli government." That's ALL he says and he does NOT mention the distribution. You can say whatever you want about the reason why people send him money in the first place, but it's his right to refuse it. My motivation is simple, I like that distribution, it is open to everyone, and because you've been vexed by his opinions you're trying to hurt its image and discourage people from using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.240.235 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to put a fair and neutral statement of fact on Wikipedia. You are trying to hide that fact. I've said my piece and made my case-- I'm done here. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's fair and neutral then it's ok. A lot of Wikipedia articles have a "Criticism" section. I don't see why you want to criticize Linux Mint though. He made a mistake, surely you can find ways to criticize him for it without trying to harm the image of the distribution. Kiwisoup, I didn't delete any page, only admins can do that. If you want to put the criticism over there that's ok with me. Criticize the man for his actions, don't hold the distribution responsible especially when they made him delete his opinions from their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.240.235 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is he is the guiding force behind linux mint, so his actions effect his work, in the same way teachers belong to a school and priests belong to a church, if either did anything it would also effect the organisation they work for. As such it does effect Linux Mint and any claim to the opposite is completely ridiculous. This happened, and your, and others, refusal to acknowledge it is bias to say the least. Gazab1 (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Would who ever keeps putting in "In particular, he wrote: "I don't blame citizens for their need of protection or their patriotism, what I blame here are people, Israeli or not, who think the cruelty and terror used in this conflict should continue and for whom peace isn't an option."" kindly stop doing so. This bias viewpoint is a one sentence snapshot intended to warp the previous statements. And minor blogs, that he keep changing are not encyclopedic verifiable content. 92.12.254.97 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"92.12.254.97" stop deleting this please. This is a direct citation and it explains the developer's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailytruck23 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bias citation, It's fine to include the explanation but you can't say "in particular he says" when even on the blog it doesn't say he thinks that in particular. It's not the main point, it's part of a collection, your warping it by selectively quoting. Its part of his views, not the main one. Change the way you present that and I might not remove it. 92.12.41.37 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources for explanations on the blog stance. 92.12.41.37 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to to a vote/poll and have the highest number of votes win for the decision of whether it stays or goes? --Old Marcus (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that the inclusion of the controversy was informative for me. I don't really have a strong opinion on the controversy itself, but I do care that Wikipedia should be informative. In fact, I'm going to do more research into the subject because it has opened my mind to some new ideas. I think that's what Wikipedia has always been best at. So please keep it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.158.43 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think any discussion of this controversy belongs in an article about Clement Lefebvre, if any, not this article. (I'm not sure if Mr. Lefebvre is considered noteworthy of an article at all. If not, that isn't a good reason to include the controversy here.) I suggest comparing this article's treatment of Mr. Lefebvre's comments/postings to the ReiserFS article's treatment of Hans Reiser's life events — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you, Howard, IF Clem was not still requesting that those who support the Israeli government NOT contribute to the Linux Mint project (see the post titled "Palestine" on his personal blog page). When the leader of an open source project makes a request specifically related to the project based on political views, the result is that the project becomes tainted with the politics. I hate it that this is the case and I practically begged Clem to retract his request, but he still has not. In fact, his statement is that it is very important to him that people with those particular political views not contribute to Linux Mint. Thus this is a Linux Mint issue and will be until Clem stops making that request.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is sad that such a significant portion of this entry is dedicated to this topic. I wonder if so much attention would be paid if any nation aside from Israel were the focus. In fact I remember a number of lead developers that have decried the behaviours of various governments/groups (Serbia, Russia, Rwanada, etc), yet their project pages are completely free of any mention. We need to remember, it is ok to dislike a government's/state's actions without needing to harbour some deep seeded prejudicial hatred. Sometimes governments do disagreeable things and sometimes people speak about those disagreements. Until the Mint logo is replaced with a swastika, I think the focus should remain on the subject at hand, a Linux distro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.59.82 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead developers decrying the actions of governments is perfectly fine. But did those developers state that is was very important to them that supporters of Serbia, Russia, Rwanda, etc., NOT contribute to their open source projects? See the difference? Unfortunately the leader of this project has made support of a government an inherent part of the distribution, so it is part of the subject at hand.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is not a political pursuit, this is humanitarian issue, and i believe that it is true. Look at the Palestinian people they are getting murdered left and right -and please don't say it is Israel rights, if you know that you are right you don't use force, unless you are scared, that is precisely what Israel is doing, using force, cause the government knows it is not the right thing to do -take the lands of innocent people. So they know they are not the good guys, but somehow they made us believe they are, and we fight for them.... so i am with the post, a personal post or not, it is true, this can't be like this, why are people getting killed, because politics needs the middle east to stay in a war state, i don't remember ME being peaceful ever my entire life i have always heard of war there, so come on, don't be blind, we don't need Linux to be political we need it to be free, and free means not free money wise, free mentally, not be affected by political lies, and power that kills the sound of freedom.... this is not Linux, and BTW politics is to not be concerned cause they want us not to be, making Linux like others, come on guys with me to the world of real freedom, the freedom to believe and think for yourself. ........ALK......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.95.11 (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. FYI Jim Rogers, let me cite myself better than you did: "I don't expect everybody to agree with me and I don't have an issue with people who don't.", "I don't want to force my opinions on others. I did use the Linux Mint blog. I'm sorry I did and so I apologized and deleted my post from there. I also said I didn't want Israeli to use Linux Mint, and I'm sorry I said that as well. Because first, I don't care where people are born, and second I have no agenda in restricting the use or distribution of Linux Mint.". That all comes from there: http://eclelef.blogspot.com/2009/05/personal-facts-mistakes-and-apologies.html. Next time you cite me with sentences out of their context, try at least to pick things that represent what I think. As for Linux Mint itself, it's for everyone without restrictions and whether it's on the forums or the blog, political content is now handled like SPAM. We don't do politics, I'm sorry I did and I can tell you this project is not political and whoever in the team forgets that (I can guarantee you I won't) is going to be reminded pretty fast. So now, I hope you stop spreading FUD and if you've got concerns about the licensing of Linux Mint or its ties with politics, come and ask us for clarification instead. -- Clem.

Also, about Wikipedia, I don't have an opinion on whether the article should describe Mint as it is or whether it should trace every bit of information that ever related to it. Either way, if you decide to publish information about my mistake on the Linux Mint article, then you should have the consideration to relay the thoughts of the team as well and the position of the project itself (which I happen to agree with, if you don't mind me doing so). State it loud and clear and be honest about it: Linux Mint is non-political AND open to everyone. Now, I've got no intention of spending more time on this discussion page but I'll be happy to clarify any questions people might have by email: clem AT linuxmint DOT com. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.255.135 (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, by using quotation marks, you are presenting your views by quoting yourself. The way you wrote that could be interpreted as you are taking quotes from my writing and refuting them by negation. I never made any of those statements in quotes. I didn't (and do not) say that you expect everybody to agree with you, or that you want to force your opinions on others. I quoted you as saying that you said it was very important to you that supporters of the Israeli government not support the Mint project. I've referred to the Palestine post in your blog to document that quote. I said you backpedaled on that and, while coming very close to retracting the request, you never quite did. The post you linked is an example of that.

Unfortunately for you, I have read all of your comments in great detail and, as you know, I have communicated at length about all this with you. I am certainly not ignorant of the full context of this debate. Whether they really represent your ideas or not, here is what I believe to be a fair summary of the way you expressed yourself on your blog: you feel that the Israeli government has been cruel to the Palestinians and requested that supporters of that government not support Mint. You then conceded that such a blatantly discriminatory request was inappropriate. So you now say you're not going to actively discriminate against anyone, but if you catch wind that a contributor is supporting cruelty, you're going to "gently" let them know about your displeasure with them. Since you do not back down from the statement that the Israeli government practices cruelty, it is clearly implied that you don't want participation in your project from anyone that supports that government. And, in fact, your original blatant request to that effect still stands with no retraction (or at least not an unambiguous one).

Those are your words, but if they do not accurately describe your opinions, why don't you go back to your blog and make it clearer instead of accusing me of quoting you out of context and telling me to come to you for clarification? In fact, I think it is you that needs to consider the context of your comments. If you were a supporter of the Israeli government and read *all* the words on your blog, would you feel like your contributions to the Mint project were welcome? If the answer is "no," then Mint does have a political taint-- whether you intend it or not. That is why this issue is being dealt with here. Just like Henry Ford's antisemitism is dealt with on the Ford Motor Company wiki page, your biases are relevant on the Mint wiki page.

Despite all your attempts to cloud this incident (while simultaneously offering "clarification" by email), I think the words you've written on it betray the fact that you really don't like the Israeli government, and you'd really rather not have supporters of that government contribute to your project. You actually said it out loud. That's your right and I don't have a problem if that's how you want to operate your project. I'm not particularly wild about the Israeli government myself. However, if that is how you want to operate your project, then I think it's appropriate to have some mention of it on the Mint wikipedia page. And, judging by the comments of others, I'm clearly not alone in this interpretation and conclusion.

As for your second point (contained in the same post), I did not write the current section, I don't really agree with the way it's written, and I don't think it's particularly well written. I tried to make edits to it but they were always reversed and when I was accused of vandalism I stopped editing it. So I definitely did not get my way on that section, but, since wikipedia works by consensus, I do not expect to always get my way. In my opinion, even if you resolve your ambiguous statements here and on your blog, this event is a historical one that did happen. Furthermore, it has dragged on long enough that I feel it would always be worthy of some small mention.

But-- hey, I'm not going to get into any editing wars. If the consensus is that this section should be removed, then I will not persist. I'm just making the case-- if others are not convinced, then so be it; the Palestine section will be removed. But people like Stan Simmons who make unilateral decisions based on arguments that have been brought up and shot down numerous times are not operating on consensus. That is completely unfair. Perhaps, as suggested by someone else, we need a vote to determine what the consensus is on this section. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

... ok, you know what, you win. I don't have the energy to compete :) Think what you want about my position, know it better than I do and give my team and myself the political etiquette we all refuted. Enjoy doing that and spend a lot of time doing it. We'll continue to answer individual emails and to explain that, no, we don't care what users think in politics, and yes, everyone is welcome to use and contribute to Mint. Now you can put that in Wikipedia unless you find our position less relevant than what was once said by myself out of anger and on the wrong blog. I'm going to meet with the team on this issue to decide if we can make a public statement on linuxmint.com/blog and tell people like you Jim, once and for all, that we don't care about politics in the context of the project -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.174.103 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clem, we're not playing a game here, so there is no "winner." Please note that I did not start this discussion and I did not put the original section in, others did. I did not initiate any of the activities on the Mint wiki page. Also, I have made no edits here since I first reversed Stan's edit. I requested that he justify his edit on the discussion page, and he did (rather poorly, but he did do it). I responded there, and did not reverse his reversal. So there is no need to make this about me. I'm not misbehaving here, and I'm not the only one who expresses the opinion that this section should be included.

Stan's (and others) justifications for not having the section is here, my (and others) justifications for including it is here. I'm leaving it to others to chime in in the hope that we can reach a consensus. I am not and will not act unilaterally on this. As I said before, if I'm the only one who feels it should be there, then I will not persist in arguing about it. I'm not going to get into a ridiculous editing war with Stan or anyone else. So if you do make a statement on the Mint page, it's not just me that needs to be convinced.

Also, I'm not saying I know your point of view better than you. Maybe you don't mind who contributes to Mint. But you still have a post on your personal blog that says "I don’t want any money or help coming from people who support the actions of the Israeli government. Thank you for your understanding. This is very important to me." I understand that subsequent posts softened that and said anyone can contribute, but that does not specifically refute that statement. And it's still there. It sends a very mixed message.

It's analogous to segregated lunch counters in the 1960's-- the law forced them to allow blacks, and the owner might acknowledge (and answer personal communication) that blacks could come in, but what if he left up the "whites only" signs? Would a black person feel welcome? Even if the owner said, yes, they are free to come in? Until he took down the signs, no reasonable black person would come in.

It probably wouldn't help if the owner was forced to take the signs down from the lunch counter and then simply moved them to his personal home. If you were a black person, and you knew that the owner had messages at his home that indicated he supported discrimination against blacks, would you go into his lunch counter? I don't think so. It probably also wouldn't help if he said "oh, never mind that-- I just put that sign up in anger because I happened to be mad at a black guy," but still left the sign up. As long as the sign exists, the message is still being sent, regardless of the claimed reason it exists.

In this analogy (and it is just an analogy), the only way this lunch counter owner could fix this problem is to remove all signs of discrimination both at work and at home, and make a clear statement that he is refuting the previous discriminatory signs and statements. Only then would a black really feel welcome at his lunch counter.

What you did was post a sign at the Mint website saying "Israeli government supporters not welcome here." That caused enough rukus that you said "sorry that I posted that sign at work-- I'll move it to my home, and that'll fix it." Myself and several others pointed out that that was clearly not enough-- if that sign exists at your home, it still clearly sends the same message at your work. You responded by putting up other signs at home saying that anyone is welcome at your work, but, if you don't take down the original sign at your home saying that they're not welcome, then exactly what is the message? The only way to make your feeling clear is to take down the first sign that clearly says they're not welcome.

I hope this makes it clear that I'm not saying I know your position better than you-- I'm pointing out that you are sending mixed messages, and usually the only reason to do that is that you're really still trying to send the original message while giving the appearance that you have changed it. In this case, I don't think anyone is fooled (with the apparent exception of Stan Simmons). Making a statement on the Mint page is fine, but it's not going to work if the Palestine post remains on your personal website. You simply cannot have two signs saying the opposite thing and say that you're being clear.

As I also said before, this is a historical event, and controversial enough regarding principles of open source development that it is probably some part of the Mint story no matter what you do. I guess we'll see what you do and what the community thinks about it and perhaps then a consensus can be reached. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. That blog was created to move this post elsewhere and to make it personal. But you're telling me it's just not personal enough. I guess you're right since without Mint I wouldn't have that particular audience and whether it's to talk about NFL, cooking, Android or politics, I don't want to be heard for the wrong reasons. So the blog is deleted. I exported it to keep it archived and I hope you'll be satisfied that there aren't any "mixed signals" anymore. Mint is open to everyone, I don't have any political agenda, I said something out of anger, I kept saying I was sorry I did and I'm tired of people telling me I'm arrogant, racist, nazi, antisemitic, and whatnot. Is that enough now? Or do I need to do more for you to take me seriously when I tell you Mint is not political? -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.248.153 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so exasperated with me-- you asked my opinion in May what I thought would resolve this situation. At that time I laid out my fix clearly and simply-- explicitly retract the request found in the Palestine blog post and either remove that post (or indicate there that it is retracted). You thanked me for my opinion and chose not to take my advice (which is certainly your right). Thus you were indicating that you were standing by that post (which is, again, your right). So I don't think there's any reason to act like you "just don't know what to do to satisfy me," and "what else do I have to do?" and so on. It's pretty simple really; if you made a mistake with that blog post, retract it, apologize, remove the post, and make an equally clear statement that supporters of the Israeli government are *not* being requested to stay away.

You have certainly apologized, but it never seems to be for the right thing. You apologize that 1) you posted it in the wrong blog, 2) that you said it in anger. Note that neither is an apology for the substantive nature of the post. You also say that "Mint is not political" and "Mint is open to everyone" and you "have no political agenda." Please note that none of these statements actually retract the original request that Israeli government supporters not contribute. All three of those statements could be perfectly true, and at the same time it still could be your request that these people not contribute.

It's like you're always hanging on to a little piece of that original request and you just don't want to let it go. It makes me suspicious that you really do stand by that original request. Why else would you attempt to rectify the situation with generic tautologies like "Mint is open to everyone" and "Mint isn't political." Since it's open source, of course it's open to everyone, and, of course, software itself has no politics.

In my view:

The question *is not* whether Mint is political-- it is not.

The question *is not* which blog you used to post the request-- that doesn't really matter.

The question *is not* whether everyone can contribute to Mint-- you have not banned anyone from contributing (and probably could not).

The question *is not* whether you have a political agenda-- being an open source developer does not mean you must drop heart-felt beliefs.

The question *is not* whether political beliefs/requests of the leaders of an enterprise should be on the wiki page of that enterprise-- they often are.

The question *is* whether it is your desire and request that *supporters of the Israeli government* NOT *contribute money or support to Mint*. If the answer is "yes," then it is proper to mention it in the Mint wiki page. If the answer is "no," then it may not be necessary.

One properly constructed statement would answer that question once and for all. In fact, in the blog you deleted, you were asked that specific question several times, but only gave long rambling responses that never really answered the question. And it has been my feeling that refusal to answer such a straightforward question with an equally straightforward answer indicated that your request still stood.

However:

You have now deleted the blog (you didn't have to delete the entire blog, just the Palestine post would have been enough), and in your statement on this talk page you said "I also said I didn't want Israeli to use Linux Mint, and I'm sorry I said that as well. Because first, I don't care where people are born, and second I have no agenda in restricting the use or distribution of Linux Mint." Again, your original request was in regard to supporters of the Israeli government, not Israelis in general, and the actual request was for no contributions to Mint, not for limits on use or distribution. So the current apology (yet again) doesn't quite match up to the offense, but I don't want to split hairs too much. Maybe you are trying.

Given your current actions and statements, along with the fact that you're a nice guy and certainly not a racist or anti-semite, I'm going to take it that the original request, now deleted, is officially retracted and that there is no longer a political taint on Mint. So I will probably stop advocating that the current Palestine section is absolutely necessary to be retained.

On the other hand, the original event did happen, and it was highly controversial. So it's possible that it should be mentioned in some way here. On the other (third?) hand, I'm not sure how it can be mentioned in a totally neutral way that would not result in certain parties taking offense. If I was the King of Wikipedia and could handle it however I wanted I'm not sure what I'd do.

But not only am I not the King here (apparently that would be Stan Simmons), as I said before this wiki section on Palestine is not my doing originally, and I have done little editing to it. So despite the fact that you appear to be determined to somehow satisfy me in order to resolve this, it's really the entire community that needs to be satisfied decide what to do.

Anyone else have an opinion on what to do at this point? --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere here. So let me address what you feel is still missing. You said: "The question *is* whether it is your desire and request that *supporters of the Israeli government* NOT *contribute money or support to Mint*. If the answer is "yes," then it is proper to mention it in the Mint wiki page. If the answer is "no," then it may not be necessary.". The answer is NO. Everyone is welcome to participate, to use and to contribute to Linux Mint, and that includes absolutely everybody. -- Clem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.248.153 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah Clem-- your statements always have a degree of ambiguity to them. Saying "everyone is welcome to contribute to Mint" is different from saying *you* welcome everyone to contribute. Everyone was always welcome (at least by someone) to contribute to Mint, but, since *you* made the request that some not contribute, your statement is clearer if you say that *you* welcome everyone.

However, your did clearly say the answer to (what I think is) the relevant question is "NO" so I think the problem may be that you are trying to make the right statement but you are just not accustomed to using the precise language that would make me more certain about your statements.

In my dealings with lawyers and politicians, I have learned to listen to and analyze language very carefully. If a politician says something that causes controversy and is forced to apologize, they will often refuse to say "I apologize for my comments," but rather they say "If anyone was offended by my comments, I apologize." That statement is not a clear apology for the comment since it only offers apology *if you were offended.* That means they don't really think the comments were wrong, but, if you were offended, then they offer an apology for being offensive, not for the comment itself.

It's called a "non-apology apology." It's designed to settle the controversy without really repudiating the statement. The constant ambiguity of your statements has always caused me to be suspicious that that's what you've been trying to do. And if that was what you were trying to do, I was not going to be fooled by non-retraction retractions and non-apology apologies. Those are the mixed messages I've been talking about.

However, from the totality of your statements, I'm coming to believe that you're not trying to play games with your statements in order to look like your apologizing when you're really not. I now think you probably do not use language in such a precise way and are just innocently leaving these ambiguities and you probably really do regret the statement and retract it. It's probably these innocent ambiguities that look to me like mixed messages. So, for what it's worth, I'm satisfied that the controversy is resolved and that your original request is retracted.

But what is your opinion of how this should be handled in the wiki? Modify the current section? Get rid of it? I can understand the argument that if the statement is retracted and apologized for, there is no need to draw attention to it by having a section on the wiki. However, I also see the argument that this is a historical event and brings up interesting questions as to the propriety of requesting limits for open source development participation. In that case, there could be historical and instructive reasons to include some mention. Then again, that question is not specific to Mint, so maybe it would belong on a wiki page about open source development.

I don't know what is the right thing to do; maybe others will have opinions. I will no longer be insisting that it be put here, but I also have no objection to it being here. It's been pretty quiet around here lately-- maybe you should just remove it and see if anyone cares. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only just now notice that you (Clem) edited the Palestine issue section. That was a nice gesture that reinforces the sincerity of your retraction. Given all these developments, I now think the section is too long and perhaps draws too much attention to this issue now that Clem has finally resolved it and essentially removed it as an issue. It pretty much has only historical interest now. I also feel no need to be named in this dispute (although I don't have a problem with being named-- it's just not really necessary). Based on all that, I now vote that this section either be significantly shortened or removed entirely.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

About Wikipedia, it's not for me to say because I'm at the center of the controversy. The section is historically true but it's more interesting for someone who wants to find out how I messed up, not someone who wants to get a summary of what Linux Mint is. Apart from that, I'm certainly not a politician, I don't have a problem with saying it and I do mean it: I welcome everyone to use and to contribute to Linux Mint. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.254.62 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I now believe you and I'm truly glad to hear it. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is appropriate to have some mention of this incident, unfortunate as it may be. To the best of my knowledge the initial restriction/request was unprecedented in the FOSS world and even though it had/has the potential to be extremely damaging to Linux adoption, especially in the corporate sphere (MS rep: Buy our software, we'll never tell you what to think), none the less it did happen. This is Wikipedia after all, not MiniTrue, if one aspires to be accurate source of information then missteps must also be documented however embarrassing they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.91.181 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is completely reasonable, but how would you do it? Do you have an example of how you would do a fair and neutral section on this? Or did you like the previous one (now deleted)? --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may take a stab at it, I think the first part of the section is more or less ok, but it drags on a bit. Here's what I would do:

"On 2009-05-03, the lead developer of Linux Mint, Clement Lefebvre, said he was touched by what was happening in Palestine and asked supporters of the Israeli government not to use or donate to Linux Mint. This was expressed as his own personal stance, but displayed on the official Linux Mint blog. He later apologized for the initial wording of his post and for posting it in the wrong place, and the post was rephrased and moved to his personal blog. However, the controversy continued, and the blog was taken offline in November 2009. In the discussion leading to the removal, Clement Lefebvre confirmed that everyone was welcome to use and to contribute to Linux Mint and that the project was not political. He also invited anyone seeking clarification on this controversy and on the current situation to contact him."

It still might be a bit too long, but at least it's shorter and more to the point. What do you think? -Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Unknownwarrior's summary is certainly is a fair and accurate description of what happened. I think it's very reasonable, but I wonder if all this couldn't be handled even with a sentence or two. Something like "Based on a political post mistakenly posted on the Linux Mint website, there was confusion about the developer's desire for restrictions on participants in the Linux Mint project. The lead developer has since made it clear that the project is open to all developers." That's just off the top of my head to give an idea of what I mean.

That type of sentence is short, but if there was a reference, anyone interested could get additional information elsewhere as opposed to having the whole thing explained right here. I guess that's the question I still have in my mind-- how many words are appropriate to dedicate to this (now historical) event.

But one thing I feel more certain about is that the title of the section should be changed. "Position on the Palestinian Conflict" is not really what this section is about anymore. Perhaps there's a more neutral title that would capture the fact that this is an incident that happened in the past and is now resolved. However, I'm having some trouble coming up with an example. Maybe someone else has an idea?

I'm also wondering if anyone had a good argument for just deleting this section entirely; if so, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm now kind of conflicted about the whole thing. Some have made good arguments for including it. I certainly understand and agree that, generally speaking, wiki pages are supposed to have all the facts-- good, bad, and otherwise. So there is a clear argument for including it.

But given that the event has been acknowledged as a mistake, retracted, and apologized for, it's going to become a smaller and smaller part of the Mint story over time. Is there an argument that at some point it should just go away? If so, should it be now or later? Are we sure that it should aways be here?

I'm really asking here, not arguing.

But if we are to have a longer treatment of the incident on this wiki, then I think Unknownwarrior's section is fine.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that UnknownWarrior's shortened version of the current post (liberally annotated with outside references) would be the most appropriate version so far offered, I also think the current title accurately reflects what happened.

I doubt that one or two sentences can readily sum up what happened, for instance Jim's suggestion is misleading: "Based on a political post mistakenly posted on the Linux Mint website, there was confusion about the developer's desire for restrictions on participants in the Linux Mint project." There was no mistake, the original post was meant to be placed on the official blog and Clem's desire for no pro-Isreali's to support (or use) Linux Mint was crystal clear. What happened was that Clem's position changed over time, but the one sentence summation doesn't reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.91.181 (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely right that it wasn't a mistake as in an inadvertent error-- I meant mistake in terms of an inappropriate action that was immediately declared a mistake by Clem and rectified by moving it. You may also be right that a shorter statement won't cover it appropriately-- but I thought it was worth exploring. Maybe others don't.

However, the title "Position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and controversy" seems wrong to me. This is not about the *position* on this issue, it's about the fact that he interjected a political position into the development of the distribution. To me, the way it reads now is as if the discussion in the section is to be about the particular position that he took, as if his position one way or another is the subject at hand. Obviously no one cares about his position on the Palestinian conflict, but many care about how his politics were brought into the distribution. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I undid the summarization done on the political controversy. It's debatable whether it should appear or not in the article, but the main reason for it to be here in the first place is historical accuracy. Also, I'm getting a lot of hate mail in regards to this issue so at the very least I'd like people who are still passionate about the subject to know the whole thing rather than an incomplete summary of it. There's nothing worse than people's interpretation, especially on topics who can relate to racism, nazism and so on. Either we don't mention it at all, or we explain everything in details. That's my opinion. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.191.206 (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the changed summary doesn't reflect it all - I thought the explanation that there was an apology, a retraction and a statement that everyone was welcome would clear things up better than the previous text. That's precisely why UnknownWarrior proposed his text on 25th November and since then noone has expressed any problem with it. I just modified it slightly to make it shorter (and by implication less important) whilst still trying to clear it all up and keep it neutral. Can I take it that you're happier with the current text as you replaced it (which is significantly longer) than with the revised summary which you removed??? You think you'll get less hate mail with a rambling timeline than with a brief summary? Thrapper (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's with the summary or the whole paragraph, I'll probably continue to get hate mail as some people will be quick to react to that kind of controversy, but at least, with the summary I have less explaining to do. As I said before, I'm in no position to decide what "people" should read on Wikipedia, but I'm in favor of either removing the whole thing, or keeping it intact. As for the size of the paragraph and its relative importance within the rest of the article, I think that can addressed simply by enhancing the article itself, it's still missing a lot of content about the project. I'll give people a hand on that as soon as I'm done with the release cycle on Linux Mint 8. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.180.164 (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, in the interest of making this politically correct, the material in this section fails to flow well, is not written in a particularly encyclopedic format, and contains unsourced "original" material. Wikipedia discussions should not be cited as a source for wikipedia in the text. I don't particularly want to change this, out of fear of getting torn apart, as I'm not particularly involved in the issue, and just happened across it while referencing other information, but could someone who is both more familiar and more involved do some copy-editing for format and sources, and for dereferencing wikipedia as a source? That might improve the overall quality of the article, and in the process, minimize the impact that this has that concerns both sides of the argument.

I don't really personally care what the developer of software I use thinks, and I'm not sure that it's 100% relevant to the topic, but it is of dubiously important historical note. It does not need to be nearly as long as it currently is, as the incident was rather minor. What's more important than being perfectly politically correct is giving a brief summary of the entire incident. Most quotes can be left out, and certainly a chronology can be left out. I recognize that the developer, in this case, is a wikipedia user, which makes the issue more challenging, which is why I'm not about to just streamline the whole thing and move on, but can someone more involved put some effort into making it look like an encyclopedia? We're not supposed to be the primary reference on the incident. Can you find some article outside of wikipedia that addresses the whole thing, or anything after the first incident? Suntzu3500 (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It seems only one person is happy with the current text. I agree entirely with the "brief summary" rather than the rambling timeline, I think if a rambling timeline is required then it should be on the person's own personal blog (which they decided to delete). Or there could be a clarification / explanation / resolution page on the mint blog (although I think just a statement on there distancing the distro from the whole affair would be appropriate). If anywhere in wikipedia it should be on the person's own page but as someone else rightly commented, just because it can't go on that page doesn't mean it should go on this one.

Can I ask 194.46.180.164, do you have any specific problems with the replacement text with which most people seem to be happy, is there anything incorrect in it or fundamentally wrong? The issue is over as far as I can tell and the shortened summary is a good compromise. If you disagree, please say what's wrong with it. Perhaps to reduce hate mail we could remove the sentence "he invited anyone ... to contact him"? Thrapper (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's just not a good summary. Open a word processor and compare it to the original content. Highlight the content that is summarised and see what's left out, you'll notice that this summary doesn't do a good job in reducing the content of the first and fourth points (it basically keeps 80% of it) and it doesn't take anything from the second and third points at all. I'm not blaming the author of the summary, it's not easy to summarize and it's already pretty compact compared to all that happened during this controversy, but I said it already, either you're happy to drop it from the article altogether and decide that it doesn't need to be mentioned in here, or you leave it there but it needs to remain accurate. Within the scope of the project this incident (I call it like that because although it didn't happen by accident, it was a mistake which I hope I didn't make) isn't particularly relevant. It certainly is for people who got hurt by what I said and so it's fair for them to want it to appear somewhere, and that's ok, but if it does here, it's fair for me as well to ask it not only to explain my mistake and its "resolution" but also to explain my apologies and my position on the whole thing. PS: I'll create a Wikipedia account, it feels weird to be called by an IP address :) -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.247.193 (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I finally got around to creating an account here. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementlefebvre (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then, as a neutral mediator, I guess I'll step in as a copy-editor. What, exactly, is wrong with this summary:

"On May 5th, 2009, the lead developer of Linux Mint, Clement Lefebvre, said he was touched by the events of the Gaza War, asking supporters of the Israeli government not to use or donate to Linux Mint. He later apologized to the development team and to the community for posting his personal opinion on the development blog, recanting his original request to the Linux Mint community."

Does everyone involve feel that this correctly sums up the incident? If not, what exactly is wrong with it? Also, Clem, welcome to Wikipedia. Please note, you can sign your talk posts with four tildas (the ~ key). Suntzu3500 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that's pretty good. I might edit your last sentence (changing "recanting his" to "and recanted") and add one more:

"... and recanted his original request to the Linux Mint community. Since then he has adamantly reassured the community that all are welcome to contribute to the Linux Mint project." --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer Clem's point about the summary proposed earlier, I don't need to use a "word processor" to compare the pages, there is a function in Wikipedia which lets you compare versions very easily from the history. For example, the changes which you made in your last modification to the page are shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_Mint&action=historysubmit&diff=330222783&oldid=330074993

And yes I'm aware that the second and third paragraphs are not represented in the summary that UnknownWarrior and I proposed, but I really don't think they need to stay - they don't say anything fundamentally different from repeating that the original statements were retracted, and most importantly they're not at all sourced, there are no references which support them. I suggest if you really want to make those points then you publish them yourself.

Regarding Suntzu3500's suggestion, I agree that that is also a much better formulation than the current version on the page. I still prefer UnknownWarrior's proposal but any compromise is better than none. Personally I don't like the word "recant" because it wasn't immediately obvious to me what it means (I had to look it up!) - the definition is accurate but I don't think the word is often enough used to make the meaning obvious to most readers. Thrapper (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"On May 5th, 2009, the lead developer of Linux Mint, Clement Lefebvre, said he was touched by the events of the Gaza War, asking supporters of the Israeli government not to use or donate to Linux Mint. He later apologized to the development team and to the community for posting his personal opinion on the development blog, and recanted the original request to the Linux Mint community."

That would be the revised proposal. Thrapper, I did think about removing the word "recant" and replacing it with something else, as it's a tiny bit legalese, but no other word I could think of fit perfectly both with flow and meaning. Regarding Unknown Warrior's proposal, my opinion would be that it does solve a number of problems, and indeed it is well written, but still includes primary-source material from a discussion on wikipedia (while I don't remember anything specifically on citing a wikipedia discussion, I would think that would be bad practice, even if the user in question was involved in the incident). I'd also suggest, for the sake of future criticism, if any, that the section be renamed "Criticism". Suntzu3500 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the last sentence, Jim, I'd suggest against it, as it starts to bloat it out again with clarifications, but it does provide some additional content, so I'd have few problems including that as well. My apologies for not catching that in the first comment. Suntzu3500 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To Suntzu3500: I understand that you are making something short and to the point and I support that. I also understand that once you add a qualifying sentence (such as mine), then that opens the door to other statements, then, if you include those, there is no reason not to include still others. And before you know it, you're back to a bloated statement. So I understand your hesitance to add my sentence. However, I think Clem makes a valid point. If you make it too short, people who have not been involved with this from the beginning can be confused about it and, given that it's such a hot button subject, a short entry can create more problems than it solves. However, I do agree with the idea of naming the section something like "Controversy" or "Criticism."

What I was attempting to do with my sentence is to indicate that this issue is basically over. Just saying Clem apologized and recanted doesn't seem to capture the fullness of his change. Recanting just means he took it back-- he could have done that without really changing his mind or opinion on the original request. But that's not what he's done. He has rebuked and disavowed his original request indicating that this is a true changing of his mind and attitude. Since that's the case there is really nothing left of this issue, and, in my opinion, no one should have any problem with Mint based on this whole affair (and I say that as someone who probably had the biggest problem with it). I just wanted to add something to your statement that captured that idea.

If we are to include this section, my ideal way of writing it would be such that it would serve to explain that this whole thing is now over and it's simply not an issue. For example, if one were doing some research on Mint and ran into an old blog that discussed the incident, one could come to this wiki page and find out that that was just a one time mistake that's been totally rectified and is of no consequence now. In that way the "Political Controversy" section (or whatever we're going to call it) would actually be a *positive* for Mint because it would explain the original problem and clearly indicate that it is no longer a problem. Just saying he recanted and apologized for putting the request on the Mint site doesn't seem to me to communicate that.

To me the bottom line is this: we should try to find a way to handle this that helps put the issue to rest rather than providing a constant source of heat to keep the issue burning.

Of course I'm being kind of lame in criticizing your statement without providing one of my own, but I'm a bit stumped as to how to communicate all that in something that's short. But as you can see on this discussion page, writing short is not my strong point! So I'll just give my criticism and hope others can find a way to make it happen (assuming there is agreement). --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've come full circle on this subject. If you wish to put the issue to rest (which I agree with) I think you should leave it out entirely. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much the case that we've come full circle in our arguments as it is that Clem has significantly changed the game with his actions and words. Believe me, had he not deleted that Palestine post and retracted his original request, I'd be arguing as strongly as before for this section.

It's obvious that simply removing the section is the most direct way to put the overall issue to rest-- ignoring the past is an easy way to try to make it go away. Unfortunately it's not the most intellectually honest way since the past does not go away when we ignore it. For example, the Japanese have attempted this as a way to remedy their bad behavior in China during WWII. To this day, most Japanese encyclopedias and textbooks make little or no reference to those unfortunate events. In Japan they argue that that past event is hurtful to them and they are happy to have three generations of Japanese youths be unaware of it. Based on this ignorance, many there claim it didn't even happen. So ignoring and hiding the issue successfully put it to rest instead of fanning the flames, you see. Really convenient. Easy. Straightforward. Effective.

And wrong.

I would love for someone to come here and make a really slam-dunk argument to remove this section. If they did it would solve our problem. But no one has, and probably no one can. Something unfortunate happened with Linux Mint and we are now faced with the question of how to deal with it in an encyclopedia. I doubt there's any intellectually honest way to just remove it entirely (although I'm all ears if anybody has one!). So what we are left with is the task of finding a way to acknowledge and inform about the event in such a fair and neutral way that it simultaneously puts the issue to rest. Not easy. Maybe impossible.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to the Japanese denial of their atrocities is inappropriate on several levels. Mr. Lefebvre's actions aren't noteworthy in my opinion. — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Howard. I'm not comparing the events, I'm comparing the use of denial of history to put an issue to rest. For that purpose, the event need not be the same or even comparable, just commonly known and undeniable. The comparison of that means to that end is the point. You say it's your opinion that Clem's actions aren't noteworthy. In many Japanese historian's opinions, Japan's actions in China aren't noteworthy. That's what everyone says who wants to deny history in order to put an issue to rest. Unfortunately for deniers (and fortunately for those that are intellectually honest), it's not that easy.

Earlier in this discussion, you made the suggestion that "comparing this article's treatment of Mr. Lefebvre's comments/postings to the ReiserFS article's treatment of Hans Reiser's life events" might provide guidance on what to do here. That "life event" happened to be Hans Reiser's murdering of his wife! Should I have said that your comparison is "inappropriate at several levels?" I mean gee-whiz, Clem didn't do anything as bad as committing murder, so how in the world could you use that as a comparison? Rather than being obtuse, I didn't quibble with your comparison, took your point and disagreed in a respectful way (thus negating the need to sign it "Respectfully").

However, I could have went much further with your suggestion. Going to the ReiserFS discussion page, we see that Hans Reiser's murder conviction was discussed, some thought Reiser's legal troubles should be included, others not. They compromised and did include a mention of his legal troubles on the ReiserFS page in the context of the effects on the further development of the file system. So the editors of the ReiserFS wiki page came to the conclusion that the Han Reiser murder conviction did happen, it had a clear effect on the ReiserFS use and development, and that it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that on the basis that it would be hurtful to the further use and development of the ReiserFS. That was your suggestion as to a guide for this situation? Kinda ironic, huh?

So you provided a comparison that involved a murder to argue that Clem's action should be ignored, but say my comparison is inappropriate. Then you used that comparison to argue that Clem's actions should not be mentioned here, but in that case they did mention it for all the same reasons I (and others) have provided here. I would suggest (respectfully, of course) that you worry less about critiquing my comparisons and instead make an argument that is both internally consistent and goes beyond "In my opinion it's not noteworthy."

I'd actually be very happy if you were to succeed.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The mention of Hans Reiser's "legal troubles" in the ReiserFS article is very muted, as I think it should be. I specifically cited this because the offense was so much more serious. I wasn't being ironic at all. As I said originally, if the Palestine-Israel issue belongs in an article at all, it should be an article about Clement Lefebvre. — HowardBGolden (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC). Also, please note that the conditions for omitting this discussion that you discussed in your 2009-09-13 17:52 UTC reply to me have occurred. HowardBGolden (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Clem's mistake is not serious in the way that murder is serious, but so what? That's not really relevant to this debate. If you look at the discussion on the ReiserFS page, the debate as to whether that information should be included revolved not around its seriousness but its relevance. Hans Reiser murdered his wife. That's serious, but it only has peripheral relevance to the ReiserFS project. Clem requested that a political litmus test be used for participation in the development of Mint. That's not as serious as murder, but do you really think that's a trivial event with *no* relevance to Mint?

And please note yourself that I have changed my position based on the condition being met, asked here whether it was now reasonable to remove the section, said (several times) that I'm inclined to remove it, and asked if anyone else had a good argument to do so. Nobody responded with such an argument, but several said it was wrong to remove it because the incident has historical significance. That's a good point, so I then suggested including it as one or two sentences and no separate section. Several, including Clem himself, objected. So I said if it's the right thing to include it, and it has to be long, then let's write it up in such a way as to put the issue to rest, since it's not really an issue any more. That's a lot of movement on my part as the facts have moved and persuasive arguments have been made.

So it may not be an issue now, but it was (in many people's minds) a big event up until a few weeks ago. That makes it a *historical* event of significance, which is probably just as legitimate to include as a *current* event of significance. Perhaps there is a good reason why we can simply remove it in a non-dishonest way. Perhaps historical honesty demands we include something. I'm not sure. If so, then there is the question of how to handle it in a fair way. Your view on that question may be correct, but it would be helpful to the debate if you would state a rationale for your opinions. Not just that my illustration of the peril of ignoring history is inappropriate, but *why* you don't feel that it would not be a problem in principle to ignore this historical event. Not just that you think the ReiserFS is a good parallel based on "seriousness" that no one is debating, but *why* you think that there is no relevance of Clem's actions to Mint. Not just that it's your opinion that the event was not notable, but *why* you think it's not notable. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that your opinion is legitimate, and I have no expectation that I can convince you otherwise. In human affairs it is often convenient to distinguish the creation from the creator. For examples, I think of composers Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss and their compositions. The Wikipedia articles about their many compositions generally don't refer to the controversies of their lives. This isn't an attempt to deny history but simply to make a choice about what is relevant. I accept that my opinion is not universally shared and I won't comment further, since I can only repeat what I have already written. — HowardBGolden (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I have explained several times that I do not have a firm opinion on this and, as you can see, I can be convinced and have changed my mind. I'm looking for analysis in order to create a consensus and I'm interested in yours. Apparently you are not going to provide any.

2. There is no profit in separating creator from creation when there is no basis for it. Separate when it makes sense, don't separate when it doesn't. You have provided no rationale for separating this issue (other than your opinion that it is not notable).

3. Once again, the example you provide is counter to your point. Two of the main works of Wagner that had relevance to Nazi Germany (Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg and Parsifal) have references to that on the wiki pages for those works. I assume the editors chose to include that because they made the choice that the notable events that surrounded those works are inherently relevant to them.

4. You could easily contribute productively to this debate without repeating yourself by providing rationales for your position. But then again, you have now provided two examples that undermine your own position, so your decision is understandable. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"On May 5th, 2009, the lead developer of Linux Mint, Clement Lefebvre, said he was touched by the events of the Gaza War, asking supporters of the Israeli government not to use or donate to Linux Mint. He later apologized to the development team and to the community for posting his personal opinion on the development blog, and recanted the original request to the Linux Mint community. Since then he has adamantly reassured the community that all are welcome to contribute to the Linux Mint project." This raises no arguments then? It's better than what we have now, in my opinion. Suntzu3500 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but it's still not good enough. I am NOT racist and reporting the incident without expressively reporting my explanations on this is going to create a lot of problems. I'd rather have that explained here on Wikipedia, the place where people read about the incident, than have to explain to individuals where I stand after they email me personally for clarification. Why do you feel the need to summarize what's already summarized? Drop it altogether or leave it as it is, I was sorry I got involved in this political/communication war, I'm starting to feel sorry I got involved in Wikipedia, look at the length of this discussion! This incident happened and that's a fact, but it makes me and Mint look like something we're not, so don't cut corners because that's only going to harm us. Leave it the way it is or drop it altogether. That's my suggestion. - Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementlefebvre (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the summary does **not** imply any racism, and I don't believe it would "create a lot of problems". It (correctly) plays the issue down and draws a line under it, in my opinion. However, I don't like "he has adamantly reassured the community..." - that's begging for a "citation needed". Is this original research, or is it substantiated by reliable references? I still prefer UnknownWarrior's formulation, for the reasons I gave earlier, but this compromise summary is **much** better than the current text and in my opinion also better than nothing. If someone hears about the issue and refers to this article to see what it was about, then the short summary deals with it and closes it. Not mentioning it at all is ignoring that the issue and the news and discussion which it generated, ever happened. Having said that, I see that our friend Stan Simmons has chosen to unilaterally delete this section once again without contributing to the discussion (way to help the community resource, Stan!), and I agree with Clementlefebvre that the discussion has gone on long enough. I had hoped that UnknownWarrior's sensible compromise would be adopted but alas it has been blocked by Clementlefebvre - I still don't understand his reasons why. Thrapper (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim

The claim that some people started developing for Linux Mint after the political BS seems dubious at best, especially without evidence. It strikes me as someone trying to show support for that viewpoint. Either way, because it is such a contentious issue, I think it's more problematic than usual to have unsourced statements. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

And I have some pro-Zionist sentiments myself, but is that going to stop me from using mint? I'm using it right now! The linux kernel is GPL licensed software that has been developed by thousands of people. For one lone programmer to say, "This is my OS, and you can't use it unless you think like me"--that illustrates the the height of arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.90.198 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No developers joined the project because of that, or if they did then they never mentioned it. We got 4 new developers but that was months after these events. Within the team the only time we ever talked politics was to agree that it shouldn't be accepted on the forums and on the blog, and that my statements should be removed. So yes, that claim is completely wrong. About the comment above ^^, that's great: I spoke out of anger at the time, I don't think that at all to be honest, and I'm glad you're using Mint. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.174.103 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars

While we are in debate about whether to include a certain section in the article, I believe it should be somewhat protected to avoid the edit war that has already started because of the user Stan Simmons. A user should not be able to unilaterally delete an entire section of an article for which there is ongoing discussion. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clement Lefebvre's opinions on the Israeli government have nothing to do with the Linux Mint project. It is a poorly-written section that needs to be rewritten and inserted into a biographical article for Lefebvre. Stan Simmons (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you apparently haven't seen it, could I point to to the huge Talk:Linux_Mint#Palestine_-_Israel_issue section above, consisting of dozens of editors with lots of different opinions on how relevant it is, many of which differ from your own, who have been working on this issue and trying to find consensus on the section since May. Unilaterally deleting the whole thing without even trying to join the ongoing discussion is what Unknownwarrior33 is objecting to. -- simxp (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing what those opinions have to do with the Linux Mint project. Then again, I've actually installed and am currently using Linux Mint. Stan Simmons (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The opinions of other Wikipedia editors don't have anything to do with the Linux Mint project. What they do have do do with is the Linux Mint article on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia works by consensus. (Unless you're asking what do Lefebvre's opinions have to do with Linux Mint, in which case, several people above seem to be of the opinion that, if the lead developer of a project requests, on the projects official web site, that people with political opinions XYZ not contribute to a project, they are rather making their opinions something to do with the project. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant, because the place to discuss it is the relevant section above). -- simxp (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, the political opinions of Clement Lefebvre have as much place in an article about Linux Mint as the charitable contributions of Bill Gates would in an article about Windows XP. One man's "consensus" is another man's "strong-arming". Its inclusion can not be justified, and it needs to be moved to a biographical article about Mr. Lefebvre, or deleted entirely. Stan Simmons (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Stan-- read the comments above again. The issue here is decidedly NOT Clem's political views. The issue here is that Clem has requested that a group of people who do not agree with his political views NOT contribute to the LINUX MINT project. Thus Clem has asked that adherence to his political views by other contributors be a requirement to participate in the Linux Mint project. Do you know of any other mainstream Linux distro that has a political litmus test for contributors? I don't. This is a highly significant aspect to this distribution-- it makes it virtually unique. That is why this information is in here. A better analogy is if Bill Gates allowed no one to work at MS unless they contributed money to the Gates foundation. If that were the case, don't you think that info would be on the MS wiki page? --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been around long enough to know manufactured "consensus" and the strong-arming of political opinion when I see it. Stan Simmons (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response does not refute (or even address) my point. Rather, it is an attempt to justify your unfair editing based on self-righteous indignation. I think it is clear that you are the one doing the strong-arming here. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Again? Really? Something needs to be done about this. Once again, Stan Simmons unilaterally deleted the section. If nobody stops this, the edit wars will continue over and over again. At a certain point, assuming good faith is no longer suitable. Thus, either action must be taken against Stan Simmons, or the page must be locked. Honestly, I'll do the legwork if I need to; just tell me where to go. I will also say that I usually don't get involved in this sort of Wikipedia dispute, but this is an issue that's easy enough to deal with, and something that I take very seriously.--Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey-- you're dealing with Stan Simmons here, and, by golly, he knows manufactured consensus and strong-arming when he sees it! So, given those credentials, I guess if *he* says it goes, then it goes! At that point, what does it matter what anyone else thinks? :) --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading this, it is no wonder certain editors are fighting so hard to keep unnecessary content in this article. Stan Simmons (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Stan Simmons, please stop unilaterally deleting this section from the article. The point of the discussion page is to reach consensus on the article, and by repeatedly deleting and reverting you are not being constructive. I think UnknownWarrior33's suggestion is the closest thing we have to a compromise. Given the clear and careful retraction and the deletion of the blog post, I think we can agree that the importance of this section can be reduced to a minor historical footnote, and UnknownWarrior33's construction meets that imho. Personally I'd shorten even further, like so:

On May 3rd 2009, the lead developer of Linux Mint, Clement Lefebvre, said he was touched by what was happening in Palestine and asked supporters of the Israeli government not to use or donate to Linux Mint. This was expressed as his own personal stance, but was displayed on the official Linux Mint blog. He later apologized for the initial wording of his post and for posting it in the wrong place, and the post was eventually removed. Clement Lefebvre confirmed that everyone was welcome to use and to contribute to Linux Mint and that the project was not political. He also invited anyone seeking clarification on this controversy and on the current situation to contact him.

I still don't like the "eventually removed", but explaining when it was moved and when it was removed seems to make it too long and attaches too much importance to it. A good reference for the clarification would be good too, if one exists. Feel free to comment / edit / propose here, but please don't unilaterally delete the existing text. Thrapper (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Should someone go ahead and substitute either Unknown's or your section as the discussion continues? Either are clearly better than what's there now. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm reluctant to do it myself until more people have commented here as it's apparently a hot topic. I would keep the two current references but I don't know of a good reference to clear everything up, especially since Clem's blog is gone. As for a section title, I would propose a shorter title along the lines of Political controversy or something like that. Then next year it could be downgraded to 2009 political controversy or something to reduce its prominence. Thrapper (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your plan, time line, and title suggestions are reasonable. I wonder if the poor way the current section is currently done is helping to make this a hot topic, but I'm reluctant to change it as well until others have commented--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If Clem's blog is gone, that means that the main source for the section is gone. Unsourced material can be removed from Wikipedia at any time. Stan Simmons (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Stan Simmons, this is your second friendly warning (from me, others have already warned you several times) to stop unilaterally deleting this section. I don't want to have to spend the time counting the times you've deleted this secion, but your edits are persistent enough and counter-productive enough to deserve a warning. If you persist in unilaterally deleting this content without taking the effort to contribute to the discussion here on the talk page, then you run the risks of the warnings getting escalated.

This isn't unsourced material, and it shouldn't be deleted without consensus. Would you care to comment on the proposals above? Thrapper (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is opposed to the new shorter version so I've replaced it in the text. Is that ok? Thrapper (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this section survived two rather lengthy discussions here, so its repeated removal by Stan Simmons looks rather unjustified. I restored it. Iorsh (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And I removed it. Unsourced material can be removed from Wikipedia at any time, especially when its inclusion is only for the purposes of POV-strongarming. Stan Simmons (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That material wasn't unsourced, as you well know, as it had two references. Did you bother to read the references? Did you bother to read any of the discussion on this page? Thrapper (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Political controversy section?

I don't think it's necessary to have bibliographical information on one of the developer's opinions in an article that's supposed to be about a distribution of Linux. Can someone explain why it's necessary? Can't there be a separate page for Clement Lefebvre and have this information on it? I just stumbled upon the article and was reading about Linux mint... and then.. out of no where and what seems to be like no relevance to information about Linux Mint it goes into political views about one of the developers. This doesn't add anything to information about Linux Mint. Thanks. --CantoV (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy to come into the discussion very late in the game and not see how it is relevant or related to Linux Mint. The reason why I personally think it is relevant is this: On the official Linux Mint website (linuxmint.com) on the front page was a post from the creator Clem clearly stating that he didn't want anybody who supported the actions of the Israeli government to use or donate to Mint. Telling people not to use his Linux distribution if they didn't share his beliefs which brings the status of "free software" into question because one of the requirements is that the software not discriminate against certain groups of people. Because of pressure from other people on the Linux Mint team and backlash from users, he took it off of the official website, took the part about not using but kept the part about not donating, and moved it to his personal blog (a blog he created just for this purpose). In a follow up post to his blog he even hinted that people on the project left because of his actions. I don't really care what he's said or taken back since the incident. That doesn't mean it never happened and everybody just wants to sweep it under the rug. I gave up this battle a long time ago. Kiwisoup (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You stated that it's easy to come into the discussion very late in the game and not see how it is relevant.... isn't that the point? An encyclopedia entry is not for people who already know about past endeavors of a subject or already know about it, it's supposed to be a general entry that anyone can come in, read about, and have some knowledge about it after they're done. I came here to read about Linux Mint, what it is, what it does, and how it's different from Ubuntu.. not to read about one of the developer's opinions. That's great that you know all that information about it, but to me, a normal human being coming to read about one subject, I don't want to dabble in one of the developer's blog entries. I wanted to come here and learn about Linux Mint. I really don't think it's necessary to have that section in the article that is supposed to be about Linux Mint. Imagine someone asked you what Linux Mint was and asked you to compare it to Ubuntu... would you start discussing blog entries of one of the developers? --CantoV (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that blog entry have to do with the difference between Mint and Ubuntu? Yes? Well then of course it would be reasonable to discuss.

Let me ask you this-- let's say the lead developer of an open source software project made a blog post that said "I am very upset about inner city crime and it is my request that no black people contribute to my project." Would you consider that some irrelevant piece of information that, if placed on the wiki page of that project, would just get you all confused and unable to learn about the project? How about if the developer requested that no gays contribute? Just forget about that because it has nothing to do with the project? In these hypothetical cases, the lead developer of a project just asked that people with a different skin color or sexual orientation not contribute to that project. But jeez-- that's just a personal opinion, right? Why on earth would anyone want to put such a request on the wiki page for that project? Could somebody please explain it to me?

Get real-- it is obvious that such a request is relevant to the project and it's equally obvious that it would be on the wiki page. If you disagree with the current section, just say so and make your argument as to why it should be removed. Feigning that you just don't understand why it's there and requesting explanations is kind of lame given the fact that Kiwisoup just explained it to you and there is an extensive discussion just above on this page. If you really don't understand the relevance, take a few minutes to read the discussion on this page. Feel free to disagree and tell us why you disagree right here. Maybe you will convince everyone that it does not belong. Given that the original request is now retracted and disavowed, I'm open to such arguments.

But saying that you just came here to learn about Mint and you don't know why you should be confronted with this information is not convincing. The fact is that the political controversy section in no way impedes your ability to learn any and everything about Mint on this wiki page. You say "An encyclopedia entry is not for people who already know about past endeavors of a subject or already know about it, it's supposed to be a general entry that anyone can come in, read about, and have some knowledge about it after they're done."

Sounds like the political controversy section has done just that for you. Apparently you don't want others to be equally informed.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Please note-- I'm in no way saying Clem is a racist or bigot. My examples above are simply extremes designed to refute the point that political opinions of software developers are never legitimate to include on a wiki page. He is not now making, nor has he ever made, any requests based on skin color or sexual orientation. I apologize to Clem if anyone took these examples to have anything to do with his behavior. See below for further discussion.--Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the previous discussion of this matter. I'm coming in as a person who wanted to learn about an operating system and got that but also read about something that is irrelevant about the information about an operating system, and therefore, would like to see the section removed. I have nothing further to say. --CantoV (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As you'll see from the discussion above, many people would like to reduce this section and one user in particular wants to repeatedly delete it. In answer to your question whether it's at all relevant to the article, my opinion is that it has (minor) historical significance to the article because it made a bit of news at the time for the distro, not just for the individual. However I think we're all agreed that the section is too big now as it is, right? Does anyone have any objections to replacing it with one of the above suggestions? Can anyone provide a reference for the clarification? Thrapper (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just read what Jim said above and I feel really uncomfortable with it. I made three mistakes: 1. Talking politics on a Mint site, 2. Being partial (pointing the finger at the Israeli side without equally condemning the Palestinian side), 3. Telling people they weren't welcome to use or contribute to the project. I deeply regret each of these mistakes and I promised not to mix politics and Mint anymore, I got to talk to a lot of people and although I don't feel like I have a complete understanding of the conflict I don't feel partial about it anymore, though I don't believe it's going to happen anytime soon I just hope for the victims on both sides to find peace in the future, and finally I was extremely clear and apologetic on the fact that Mint is not political and that there are no restrictions with the licensing. It is welcoming everyone. So now, the mistakes were still made and people got hurt by it but I find it very unfair to be somehow compared to examples of racism or gay discrimination. That's just plain ridiculous and I'm really pissed off with it. For the record I received all kind of emails, I was told I was a nazi, a hero and what not, there's a real war out there on the Internet and a lot of people were happy to make me part of it. The more crappy references and examples people post about me, sorry Jim but telling people the section should be here because what I said could compare to some fictitious racist character who doesn't like Black and/or Gay people, that's just one example of that, the more of this gets posted on the Internet and the more I have to defend myself on ridiculous accusations. 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. Is it anyway relevant to describe the project itself? No, not at all. Whether it's the project itself or me in particular, you're all welcome to participate and no one cares where you come from, what you believe in, what color you are, whether you prefer women or men, and all that.. we just don't care, I just don't care about this at all. And it comes down to that. Do you NEED TO KNOW what happened BEFORE you decide to use Linux Mint? No. Because it doesn't change anything. Do people who got hurt by this incident want you to know? Yes. Are they right in asking for that? Yes, I believe they are. <-- so that's the sensitive part and that's where there are good reasons on both side of the argument. Now Jim, there's no need to talk about fictitious stupidity (as in racism, or anti-gayism (don't know if there's a word for it), or nazism, or antisemitism, etc) in the scope of what relates to me. -- Clem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.247.193 (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote has caused you any problems. That was not my intent, and I thought I made it clear that I was talking about a hypothetical situation. The problem is that so many have come here (including you at times) claiming they can't see *any* reason why a lead developer's political opinion should be discussed on a wiki entry. This is clearly incorrect, and I'm trying to point that out by coming up with some examples that are indisputable. Unfortunately, some persist in refusing to acknowledge this, which requires more and more extreme examples to make the point.

If people don't think *this* particular political opinion incident should be mentioned here, that's fine-- they should make their argument and maybe they'll prevail. I'm now inclined to think the same way on this myself. However, it they're going to say "Gee-willikers-- I just couldn't imagine *any* scenario where you would talk about a developer's political opinion on the project's wiki page," then I'm prepared to provide as extreme of examples as necessary to refute that argument. If people would stop making that simplistic and wrong argument over and over and over again, there would be no need to come up with more and more of these extreme examples.

That said, I'm not happy if people are misunderstanding the point of providing these examples, so I will make it clear: Clem Lefebre is *not* a racist or bigot of any type. He made a mistake, has (finally) rectified it, and he should not be harassed in any way. We are simply having a discussion here about how, if at all, this incident should be handled on the Mint wiki page. Clem is a nice guy with a good heart who is always trying to do what he thinks is right. Even this mistake was a result of his compassion for people who are indisputably hurting. I have great compassion for many of the Palestinians as well. I believe people should *support* Clem as he is a good person and moving into a high enough profile position in life to do good for the world. We need more people like Clem in this world, and I wish him great success.

As of the last month or so, nobody can reasonably dispute that this "Palestine Issue" is now *over* and it would now not be irrational to remove it from the wiki page. Let's stick to resolving this issue in a satisfactory way and not smear or harass Clem based on lies or misunderstanding. I have added a note to my post above to make sure that I am not the source of misunderstanding-- anyone who interprets my extreme examples as any way related to Clem is willfully perverting my point to cause trouble for him. To those I say, stop it now!

OK-- now that I've addressed that, let me say I believe you are wrong when you always mention that one doesn't need to know about this issue in order to decide to use Mint, or that the primary purpose of this page is to learn about Mint, etc. The purpose of a wiki page is not simply to educate people about the distribution. There are plenty of ways to do that (e.g., distrowatch). A wiki page is *encyclopedic*. It exists to provide *all* information about an entry, including history, personalities involved, notable incidents, everything!

So I could see removing the current section on political controversy due to the fact it is now simply a historical event that will diminish in importance over the years. On the other hand, it did happen, it was notable, so there is nothing inherently wrong about keeping it either. Certainly, the idea that the section is superfluous in order to make a decision about whether to use Mint is not a great reason to remove it. It's a great reason to not mention it on distrowatch, but it's not necessarily relevant to a wiki entry.

So, as you can see, I'm really on the fence here. I can see legitimate reasons to keep it, I can see legitimate reasons to get rid of it. I honestly don't know what is the right thing to do. --Jim Rogers10 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed deletion of that section. It's notable, so there's no good reason to remove it without consensus. Andrensath (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That section was controversial from the start. Consensus is needed to insert it, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honormuk (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And consensus that it should be included, or at the very least not summarily deleted, was reached. Controversy is no reason not to include notable, sourced information. Andrensath (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the history, this section wasn't in the article for the most part of 2010, it was added again only a few days ago. Read the discussion page and see how many people objected to it. Consensus was obviously never reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honormuk (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussion page, including the section where User:Stan Simmons was repeatedly asked to stop deleting it without consensus that it should be deleted. However, as it does not seem likely the two of us can reach consensus, I have listed this discussion on WP:30. --Andrensath (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: Though I have not yet "taken" this Third Opinion request, I thought that I might record what I've found out about it so far. This is a controversy which has been ongoing for over a year and has at one time or another involved many different editors, see the following sections, above: #Palestine - Israel issue, #Claim, #Avoiding edit wars, and (this, the current one) #Political controversy section.3F. This addition defines, I believe, the material in question. The material in question was in and out of the article until it was removed on January 2, 2010, at which time discussion about it also stopped on this talk page. It remained out of the article until it was restored on April 25, 2010, setting off the current round of the controversy, which has resulted in the material being added and removed a few times since then and discussion resuming here on May 11, 2010. There appear to be only two editors actively involved in the discussion of the current phase of the controversy, though a third editor actually restored the material and a fourth editor has participated in the additions and reverts.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems an accurate summary of the series of events to me, and I'm fine with taking that diff as an 'official' version of the material in question for the duration of the discussion. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these facts are accurate. I'll be working on a solution which will probably solve the conflict people are having (myself included) with the presence of this section. I feel it deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia but it stands out in the article as one single historical incident whereas no others are mentioned. I think a listing of historical events and incidents would make a good compromise. A 3rd opinion is good to have and I look forward to reading it. I'll also give the listing a try to see if I can please everybody. If anything it will also allow us to list more information that's currently missing about the history of the project. Honormuk (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Linux Mint/Archive Israel-Palestine Controversy other than the observations made above and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I've thought about this overnight now, and this is my Third Opinion. The material in question should be in the article. Although the event officially had nothing to do with the product, Clem's closeness to the product and the fact that he — even personally and unofficially — linked the product to the political issue makes the controversy historically significant to the product. It is, frankly, a very close call, but I think that including it best fulfills the purposes of Wikipedia.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I think you missed a point and if possible I would like for you to consider it. Most people involved agreed on two facts: 1. The information in the section is historically correct 2. The controversy is over and the incident does not reflect anything related to the present state of the project. As such the incident only deserves to be mentioned from a historical point of view, it's not something people need to know before using Linux Mint, it's something that happened and that all parties involved regretted. If we add this section we hurt the project with an element that doesn't define it. If we remove it we upset the people who were hurt by the incident. None of these solutions are ideal. My suggestion is to put the incident in its own context, historical, and to do this I propose to establish a timeline of historical events related to the project. This will give us the ability to describe this incident without harming the project's name in what is de-facto a summary of what Linux Mint is on Wikipedia. It will also allow us to cover other important events that shouldn't appear in the main article, I think Mats Geier's death is the most obvious example of this. Honormuk (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I took all that into consideration already. Let me clarify, however, that by saying that I believe the information belongs "in the article" that I did not necessarily mean that it couldn't go into a subarticle or article specifically related to this product and project. I don't think that it ought to be excluded from here and moved, for example, to an article about Palestine/Israel relations or about Clem himself or anywhere, for that matter, that doesn't have "Linux Mint" in the title, but something like what, I think, that you're proposing would be fine. I'm not blessing or sponsoring your particular solution, understand, just saying that it's a kind of solution that I didn't intend to exclude by my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)