Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

GA review quickfail

I was looking through the WP:GANs for something to review and saw this. I have no subject matter expertise, and I have to say I was pretty shocked by the name (I suppose that's the point) so I'm not going to pretend to be objective and do a thorough formal review, but if I were to do one, I would be inclined to fail the article on breadth of coverage and neutrality concerns. The pertinent questions I would want answered on a topic like this are:

  1. Who is in this group? Pseudonyms, ages and occupations, and/or whatever.
We don't have that level of detail for the Patriotic Nigra article, and frankly I don't see why we need it here. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. How many of them are there?
How many members of Anonymous are there? Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. Are the members really gay and of African decent, or is that just a ruse?
  2. What are their motivations?
  3. What are their goals?
I can add both of these to the article. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. What are outsiders' perspectives on this group? In particular:
    1. What do gay people and Africans think of the name?
    2. What do Wikipedian/Wikimedian community/Foundation officials think of their activities?
    3. What do security authorities think of them? Are they considered black, gray, or white hats? Uniformly?
    4. What do law enforcement authorities think of them? Do opinions differ?
I think that all of these "outsider views" aren't necessary in the article, but would be nice to have. It's a trivial issue as to what blacks and gays think about it. It's obviously an intentionally offensive name. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If this kind of coverage isn't available in reliable sources, then GA is not a good goal for this article. Maybe you can try to convince someone in the mainstream or avant garde tech news media to interview the leaders? Controversy sells page views, but doesn't always keep advertisers around, so who knows what would happen.

Regarding the reliability of sources, which appeared to be the main issue in the last GA review, I note that everything in the infobox except the affiliation is cited to self-published sources. That's completely unacceptable. In particular:

Purpose/focus  "being GAY NIGGERS"[2]
Membership     "The only requirement for membership is a dedication
                to the struggle of gays and niggers everywhere."[2]

Anything that inflammatory supported by self-published sources -- that's just more trolling, isn't it? The self published sources and anything even vaguely controversial supported by them need to go, sooner rather than later. —Cupco 09:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that a full GA review is completely impossible for this article, because all of the /GAn sub-article page names are fully protected from creation (e.g. try to create /GA2) so I'm going to go ahead and quick-fail it on neutrality concerns per WP:GACR#Quickfails #2 (using self-published sources for inflammatory passages promoting the group's trolling activities is WP:COI and therefore obviously non-neutral) in order to not waste the time of anyone who might try to review it. If you address the above concerns and want to try to nominate it for GA again, ask an administrator to un-salt the subpage names so it is possible to open a full review. —Cupco 09:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What portions of the article do you consider "non neutral"? Additionally, why did you completely ignore what was in the article itself (i.e. not the infobox, and how the prose portions were written). I'm curious as to how you think that those portions are "non neutral", as they are very, very well-cited. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The excerpt above. The use of all caps and the ambiguity of "dedication to the struggle" leave no doubt that the infobox is being used to troll. The fact that those passages are sourced to the group itself means that an independent source isn't verifying, for example, that the members are of African decent. Googling on "weev" for example shows that he is Caucasian. I did not ignore the article. I read it as you can see from the list of questions which would be necessary to answer in order to attain the breadth of coverage required by WP:GACR#What is a good article? #3a. —Cupco 4:36 am, Today (UTC−6)
(edit conflict)And that's the only thing? I removed both that portion and the tag. So, in short, you quickfailed it because of the infobox, and not the article itself? Mythpage88 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Those were the only neutrality problems I saw and you have addressed them. That's certainly a huge improvement. —Cupco 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you commented on what wasn't there, a Good Article review also should have comments on what is there. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see any other major problems. Per Wikipedia:GACR#cite note-6 other reviewers might not want as much detail as I would prefer, but I think 30 KB is below average GA length. I am supposed to encourage you to re-nominate the article after you address those breadth of coverage issues as best you can, to have someone else look at it, but I'm pretty sure you will need to get an administrator to unsalt the /GAn sub-article names before anyone will be able to follow the review procedure. —Cupco 10:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea why those are SALTed. Apparently some admin took it upon himself to do it without telling anyone. :( Mythpage88 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my mistake: [1] mentions blacklists, not page protection. Those are two different things but I don't know enough about the software to say how. It also says you can ask "any administrator" which is easier than having to track down one in particular as I think is necessary for protection. You seem to be acting in good faith and on the up-and-up about this, which I have to say I didn't expect in the context. Good luck! —Cupco 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, trolling organizations fascinate me, mainly because they are so damn hard to find reliable citations for. Sorry I kinda lashed out at you earlier, I just got a little upset that it was quickfailed because of the infobox, and not the article itself. Mythpage88 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as to the criminalogical aspect, there is a paper (Internetowy „trolling” – analiza kryminologiczna by G. Borek) that apparently mentions the GNAA, but I can't find a copy of the paper anywhere. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Actual racism

Fringe Views?

I removed the group's claims that they aren't really racist and homophobic. I think the chance that a reliable source would confirm that is almost nil, because, for example, this excerpt from http://linuxforniggers.us/download

If you happen to be black, you can learn how to burn a CD on Windows here, or how to burn a CD on Mac OS X here. If you instead wish to install Linux for Niggers™ on a stolen USB stick....

http://linuxforniggers.us/testimonials and the "testimonials" linked from it are worse. Several other similar examples abound on the group's web site, but can not be linked here because of the URL blacklist. —Cupco 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-inserted them, as they aren't self-published. Per Jodi Dean: 'the inclusion of the word "nigger" in group's name is only to elicit angry responses and to subvert or otherwise challenge long-standing social norms, noting that the name of the organization came from the 1992 Danish satirical blaxploitation film Gayniggers from Outer Space.' If we don't include the group's response, I don't think that the article would depict a neutral point of view. Dean is a reliable source, and she is the one who is cited, not a self-published source. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
When a journalist says "A is X" that means they are independently asserting the fact that they have presumably verified. When they say "A says they are X" that means that they are merely reporting that the self-published claim exists. Unless you have a source where an independent reliable source asserts that they are not actually racist and homophobic, I intend to replace the revert in question. —Cupco 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you telling me that we're only going to include one side of the issue? Mythpage88 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No, but not self-published claims merely conveyed by sources. Can you find excerpts from those sources where they compare the GNAA's claims to not be racist and homophobic to their output? —Cupco 22:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
So you're telling me that the GNAA's views are not notable enough to include on their own article? Is response to criticism not allowed? I was under the impression that it was not only allowed, but necessary to maintain a neutral point of view. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:VALID: "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic". Is their own view not significant? Mythpage88 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the way you're interpreting the policy would mean that there should be no response to criticism by the subject of the article in question on any article on Wikipedia. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No, only that the response to criticism would have to appear in reliable sources, not be self-published. Normally I wouldn't object, but the abundant examples to the contrary make it a serious issue. Instead of going back and forth here, why not ask for an outside opinion at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN? —Cupco 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And it does. The fact is though that response from the subject of the article itself, under your logic, would ALWAYS be self-published and thus unreliable. This blatantly violates both precedent and policy. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand the distinction between what a journalist conveys by "A is X" versus "A says they are X"? What do you think it is proper to have in an article when the only sources on the topic are in the latter of those two forms, and there is abundant evidence that A is not X from both A and reliable sources about A? And furthermore when A are notable primarily for their unreliability and trolling? —Cupco 23:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you understand the fact that Wikipedia includes all significant views? Guess what? The subject of the article has significant views, and if we can't use third-party sources to confirm their views, then they are impossible to include. This blatantly violates our policies. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not generally include WP:FRINGE views or include discredited views when doing so would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. —Cupco 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Did you just unironically say that the subject of the article possesses a "fringe viewpoint"? Mythpage88 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that they do not? We are discussing their viewpoint that they are not actually racist, when there is no question that their publications -- probably the majority of them -- include deliberately inflammatory racist statements. I have answered your questions in detail, and you have avoided answering almost all of mine. I am no longer interested in participating in such a one-sided dialog. I have asked for an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gay Nigger Association of America where I see you have already replied. I would prefer to continue the discussion there in hopes that more people will participate. —Cupco 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Their viewpoint is a significant view, which must be included, as per countless policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the view or not, it, because it belongs to the subject of the article, is significant. The "fringe theories" page specifically refers to pseudoscientific theories, not opinions and criticism. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think that a self-published claim contradicted by other publications, if not the vast majority of them, can be considered significant? They are entirely discredited because they are contradicted by overwhelming numbers of examples. —Cupco 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
How is it contradicted? The group states that they use it for shock value. I have yet to see any source that "contradicts" that. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV views are not significant unless they appear in independent reliable sources. Are there any such sources suggesting that anyone associated with GNAA is not racist or homophobic? —Cupco 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Are there any sources suggesting that they all are? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't propose including anything saying that they all are, but it would be a likely inference from their work. —Cupco 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a reliable source now, would it? Mythpage88 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Racist stereotypes" vs "Stereotypes"

Additionally, all stereotypes of african americans are racist. It's simply redundant. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The word "racism" has almost entirely negative connotations but, for example, the stereotype that blacks are above average in many sports is generally positive. —Cupco 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "racist stereotype" is redundant. The fact that they're stereotypes should be enough. And I think that the stereotype that they eat fried chicken or that they enjoy watermelons isn't negative either. In fact, all of the images (except for maybe the one with the guns, but that's also a grey area IMO) displayed don't seem to be negative at all. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No, there are stereotypes that have nothing to do with racism, and positive racial stereotypes too. —Cupco 23:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And few, if any, of the stereotypes depicted are negative, which means that racist would carry inappropriate connotations, as per your earlier post. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
You're referring only to some set of screen shots and not the excerpt and linked "testimonials" cited at the beginning of #Actual racism above? —Cupco 23:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The sentence refers to the images. Tell me where in the sentence "The site provides a download link for an ISO image which, when booted, presents users with a slideshow of images related to African-American stereotypes." it mentions the testimonials. (Hint: at no point in the article are the testimonials mentioned in the slightest.) Mythpage88 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Cupco, the only thing I can say is... [2] Diego Grez (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking you might be right. I should have bowed out when [3] was only claimed to be racist for the guns. —Cupco 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I said that they weren't negative stereotypes, just stereotypes. (Unless you can explain to me how the stereotype that african americans enjoy watermelon and chicken is negative?) Mythpage88 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
[4]Cupco 04:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it was a rhetorical question :p Maractus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I see from your user page that you claim to be the "young black man" photographed in 1973 from [5] and also a "twink". So you must be a 50+ year old twink, or perhaps a member of this organization? —Cupco 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow that is wildly inappropriate on-project behavior. Racism/homophobia of any kind should not and will not be tolerated, Mr/Ms Cupco. Assume good faith, please. --Zaiger (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I am speechless Maractus (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Puffery

I question the noteworthyness of crapflooding, shock sites, fake leaks with shock images, and causing their name to appear on Obama's website. They are all sourced, but per WP:UNDUE shouldn't they have multiple sources to be considered noteworthy? I think that's particularly important given that members are apparently intent on getting as much as possible into the press and thereby into this article. —Cupco 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should be nuked. It continues to be a troll point for the GNAA itself, and there are only few mentions in "depth" (and not even that...depth) of the organisation. Diego Grez (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently it has been up for deletion over twenty times, and the times when it was deleted, the deletion was overturned at DRV, sometimes years later. It's probably better to have a strictly conforming article as opposed to a missing article which keeps coming back as a sockpuppet-puffed zombie. User:LiteralKa/GNAA makes a convincing case that it might be better to hold your friends close and your enemies closer, and this is a surreal example of what seems to happen when it is deleted and repeatedly restored.
Are there any other trolling organizations which focus on Wikipedia? —Cupco 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The group's reason for existence is to try to mislead people, as they admit. They have several pictures of professional looking black people on their site and in their publications. Why should we not explain that they do not appear to have any black members? —Cupco 09:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And can you discern from these photographs as to how gay they may be, coz they sure look pretty straight to me! (ludicrous enough yet?) - Alison 10:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
People with white skin are not of African descent per WP:CK (Well-known historical fact, Plain sight observations, and Obvious national associations.) Why would you want to prevent the article from pointing out that the group is not black? —Cupco 10:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
unless there is a source that plainly states "Blah blah so and so is of this ethnicity," we are not to look at a photograph and create a fact stating that they are. That would be violating policy. riffic (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.gnaa.eu/
    Triggered by \bgnaa\.eu\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

German Article

Far from crying wolf, the female sysop importing the version history told me about a personal record in immporting the 3600 Versions. Far from being erased, nobody seems to care, while the cross in biographical articles has lead to various bitter conflicts. Seems the German WP has a comoplete different view on the topic ;) Best regards Serten (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)