Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

GNAA discussions on Wikipedia AfD/VfD 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 (MfD) · 7 · 8 · 9 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16tha · 17 · 18a b · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 DRV 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 PR, GA, FAC, RFF (PR: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4) · (GA: 1 · 2 · 3) · (FAC: 1 · 2 · 3) · MfD of FAC objections · RFF Draft Draft (MfD: 1 · 2) · AfD Pool (MfD: 1 · 2) Signpost Folksonomy and GNAA · GNAA up for FAC · April Fool's VfD · GNAA Deleted (MfD) Essays and the like Proposed deletion policy (AfD) · Essay (AfD · MfD) · Undelete GNAA (MfD) Misc. Old Article (MfD) · TfD · RfD · April Fool's VfD · Jimbo on GNAA deletion

Redirect

Removing this from articlehistory to remove error, Redircts are not an ah event.

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 10

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Recreation

Page was recreated as a result of the March 16th 2011 DRV. LiteralKa (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

need for better, real citations that meet WP:RS and lead that meets WP:LEAD and WP:JARGON

Per the section heading, the article sucks. The "citations" suck. The tags need to remain until the suckiness has been addressed. Active Banana (^bananaphone 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which citations "suck" and why they cannot be used? And when you tagged the article for cleanup, what cleanup did you want exactly? Quigley (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not being very helpful here by randomly removing content that is cited by WP:V and WP:RS compliant sources and refusing to provide any sort of reason. The deletion review established that the sources are acceptable. LiteralKa (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

the content being removed from here (for example the origin of the group's name) is cited in references. What objections do you have over the sources (or content in dispute)? Please note, a subjective "these citations suck" is not helpful. riffic (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

for number one when have press releases, hosted on wiki sites, ever been considered anything close to a good source? Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Self published sources are actually fine in some non-controversial circumstances: WP:SELFPUB. It will be most helpful if you avoid sweeping statements like "the article sucks", that seldom leads to effective collaboration. You might instead point out which specific claims in the article need better sourcing/misrepresent the sources in question. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Non controversial does NOT apply to this article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Non controversial" was my phrase, it isn't one of the 5 qualifiers in the policy guideline. Your comment about a possible contradiction between a claim in the lead and a book source was a step in the right direction (I haven't checked out the source yet). I hope you can continue supplying specific instances of the article making claims unsupported by references. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

then we have this normally good source, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/meet-one-of-the-hackers-who-exposed-the-ipad-security-leak/57969/ but the thing this sources is a potential connection between the subject of the article and another group. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

then we have the lead that keeps being reinstated claiming the group is a "tight knit group" and yet our reliable source number 8 flatly contradicts that claim " It's not clear a defined group ever existed as GNAA. Supposed GNAA "members" were simply troublemakers online who unified under a common moniker in an effort to disrupt Wikipedia for amusement" Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit odd to say, given the clear contradiction given in numerous citations. LiteralKa (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my "this article sucks" Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And I stand by the fact that you have yet to even come close to proving it. LiteralKa (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And your statement about Deletion review validating the sources is bull pucky. from the closer: " One legitimate concern is that while many sources show some semblance of notability, a lot are unreliable" Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing boing calls them "tightly-knit". riffic (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

you are saying that we trust "ben" on boing boing to give us content for the lead? nice. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the origin of the name of the group IS cited in a reliable source, don't remove that from the lede. riffic (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That article also says, "There is really no way to get rid of the GNAA". I wish some of our deletionist friends would read that. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

one would hope that our inclusionist friends would spend some more time actually providing valid sources and improving the encyclopedic content of articles and not just spamming "its notable, deletionsist suck". Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We have. notice, the references section is longer than the article body. riffic (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you suck, just that you should provide more specific criticisms about the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you call debate "spamming", when you yourself are doing it. Doesn't that make you a spammer? LiteralKa (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the section relating to usage of press-releases (Self-published sources) in an article:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

We have "reasonable doubt about its authenticity" - the site is a wiki, it contains statements like "President weev shampooed his neckbeard, put on a greasy Linux t-shirt and left the warm glow of his spamcave" and what is it half of the content our article is based on the primary source? Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these are actually editable by the public, only internally. riffic (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm this. LiteralKa (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You attempted to remove the bit that explained the obviously facetious tone. LiteralKa (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, is there any reasonable doubt that weev has shampooed his neckbeard? I think not. And to answer your question, "what is it half of the content our article is based on the primary source?", the answer is no. Much more than half of the article is based on 3rd party sources. The 9 primary sources accompany some of the 32 non-primary sources to provide the view of the GNAA about the events being covered or to provide details about how the group explains its hierarchy or history. I see one citation tag on the article now, that's not exactly a crisis though. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review!

You guys if you want to get this article to GA spot, you gotta have to take some things into account:

1. Expand the lead a little bit. It has to be at least two paragraphs (maybe split the one existing into two?)
2. The article is still a bit short, and kinda depends on primary sources for some things, are there more sources on the GNAA? That'd be cool.
3. Thirdly, and finally, I'm not reviewing this GA nomination, however I wanted to pointed these things to help you make it better. I'm not any good at English orthography or grammar so I'm skipping that side :P

Cheers, Diego Grez (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I started expanding the lead a bit. I think we can flesh this article out a bit more. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America#See also

Hi. I propose that the addition of Anonymous (Group) to the "See also" section (which was added over a month ago in this edit) be restored. Per WP:See also a brief annotation might be added to clarify the difference between the two articles if that is desired. Killiondude (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You should also provide a reason... LiteralKa (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't, as the groups have little in common, and even less interaction occurs between the groups. LiteralKa (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LiteralKa. Anonymous is more of a moniker for any group (not usual the same group each time) with the same general (but not precise) overarching set of principles, goals, and methodology. Anonymous is mostly about retaliation ("payback" against cat-killing, inaccessibility, and censorship), not trolling. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator of this seems to have no major edits of the article. Does LiteralKa, the main writer of this article, agree that it should go under a GAR/ want it to go under a GAR?

I think that a GAR would do it good. I look forward to the results. LiteralKa (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I should finish my part of the review soon. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

there are a good deal of issues here

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead contains facts such as the GNAA "an anti-blogging Internet trolling organization" that have no corespondent citations or coverage in the body. The article seems to read well with no obvious grammar issues.

• Added mention of anti-blogging trolling to the body. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Several sources are either primary sources (19,21) or are self published by the organization itself (1,2,3,10,16,24,25,36,41). 11 appears to attribute statements to the incorrect author. and 39 fails to back up any statements. Neither Slashdot(29) or blogs (20) should be used as a source. Quotes in other languages (13,34) need to be translated into English.

• Removed most of those sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is Google translate ok for the translation, or should we find a native speaker to do it? Qrsdogg (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:NONENG prefers wikipedians to Google translate --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I tried to trim out most of the self-published sources, as of know I think the only times the group itself is being cited is for their location, founding date, president, claim of responsibility for Apple hack, and objection to the Goatsec arrest. Do you think these fits with the guideline (WP:ABOUTSELF) or do they need to go? Qrsdogg (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I will need to to a very close read. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I would suggest using the reference names instead of numbers, as numbers change (especially when the article is undergoing a GAR ;]) LiteralKa (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that led to a bit of a headache last night :) Qrsdogg (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I will see what I can do. 4chan as a source? Really? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's not like it cites a /b/ thread, just the news page. LiteralKa (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is very little about the organization itself and it reads like a list of exploits.

• I've added a bit more about the organization, but it's going to be hard to include many details without using self-published sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   This part looks great

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I will put this on hold. Have fun.

None of my lists of problematic sources or quotes is complete. But they should let you get an idea of the issues at hand. The citation needed tag needs to be filled in too. I am half tempted to fail this now in light of the huge citation section.

Thanks for not quickfailing it :) As I'm sure you know, this is a tough subject to find good sources on. I'll get to work on cleaning up the issues you mentioned, I bet we can really improve the page though. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, I've tried to go through and flesh out the article and add some context. I think I've done most of what I can, the remaining issues I see (as of this revision) are: two uncited passages (the one with the tag and the last sentence of the first paragraph), possible issues with self-published/reliability of remaining sources, and the section on Goatse security is a bit thin. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The Publications section is iffy due to the fact that only one author is a member and the GNAA didn't sanction the fairly normal research paper. This could be done by sunday.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Both authors are members. LiteralKa (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the paper have anything to do with GNAA as an organisation though? AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a standard math/computer science paper on images. (It uses the Lenna test image) The only mention of the organization is the email address of Garry Nigger.--Guerillero | My Talk 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The paper was released by the GNAA. It shouldn't have to require that it discuss the GNAA to merit inclusion. LiteralKa (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Niger, not Nigger. LiteralKa (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in the paper does it mention that it was publish or released by the GNAA. Do you have a source (that is not the gnaa) to back up your claim. (see WP:BURDEN) --Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I added it as a citation, not a "publications" entry. Burden of proof is not on me, but I will be more than happy to assist. :) LiteralKa (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this review? No comments in almost a month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I will do a final read through tonight. I was waiting to see if more changes were going to be made --Guerillero | My Talk 15:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to some continual sourcing issues. The BoingBoing article, third party posted court document, about page et al. are either questionable sources or fail RS. The article is closer to the criteria but it is not fully there. Because of this, I am closing this review as a fail. If you have an issue with this please post on my talk page or ask for a GAR. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporation

I think we should rename the website link to "GNAA Website" because as it stands it might give someone the impression that the GNAA is a state registered legal entity. Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument you present there. However, I doubt that anyone with a grain of sense will think that the Gay Nigger Association of America is a state registered legal entity. LiteralKa (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny how misleading those grains can be. In many states, its actually not that hard to file the paperwork necessary to do exactly that. I wager that it takes more effort to get recognized by a source Wikipedia will recognize as valid for a controversial topic, than it does to file incorporation papers in most states... and if this isn't true, then the paperwork is too difficult in the state in question. Zaphraud (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking about what people would think, not the reality of the bureaucracy. LiteralKa (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As the GNAA is not legally a corporation it should not be referred to as one inside the groups article. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. The website is literally called the "GNAA Corporate Website." (Also, didn't you already say that?) LiteralKa (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm restating the question originally posted. Also, when going to the website and looking at the page source the <title> is "GNAA – Gay Nigger Association of America". If anything it should be renamed to that. Peter.C • talk • contribs 22:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've done your research. LiteralKa (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GNAA as a citation for information about itself

As a troll organization, it is unreasonable to expect any information on the GNAA website to be accurate, even information about itself. I personally, for instance, seriously doubt that the GNAA was founded on September 11th. Therefore, this article should be only based on information from reputable third party sources, and this edit should be undone. Prodego ^talk 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:ABOUTSELF:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
  • Check.
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • Check.
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  • Check.
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  • The first press release was on September 11th. Please present a reasonable doubt.
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.
  • This has been done to death. Check.

LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The reasonable doubt is that the GNAA makes everything up. And if you troll here, you will be blocked. Prodego ^talk 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that GNAA "makes everything up"? (It shouldn't be that hard to prove if this is indeed the case.) I would also appreciate it if you do not threaten legitimate Wikipedia contributors such as myself in the future. LiteralKa (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.gnaa.eu/wiki/pr/2011-06-11-gnaa-welcome is a simple example. Additionally I am somewhat concerned that you should avoid editing this article because of your conflict of interest in the subject, due to your membership in the GNAA. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your example of "making everything up?" Merely citing a press release and claiming that all of it to be false? (Also, I would suggest brushing up on the relevant guideline before throwing accusations around. Again, your behavior towards users as an admin is rather disturbing...) By your logic, Americans should avoid editing all Wikipedia articles about controversial America-related issues. A bit harsh, innit? LiteralKa (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we look at how the gnaa.eu is being used? It's only being used to cite a date, a group leader, and a claim about a hoax supported by the claim itself and other references. This isn't harmful information. Is there any reason to believe that these particular facts are false? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That information cannot remotely be expected to be true. LiteralKa here can simply change the website to contain any bit of information he wishes, and then cite it. And given how the GNAA operates, that isn't so far fetched to imagine. In fact, I would be willing to bet quite large sums of money that the GNAA was not "founded" on Sept 11. Prodego ^talk 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that good faith has been assumed. The GNAA was, in fact, founded on 9/11. It is not any stretch of the imagination to believe that the GNAA was founded on 9/11, considering its sense of humor. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you act like the Administrator you are, and assume good faith. LiteralKa (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

adequacy.org ended on September 11, 2002, so 9/11 isn't an unusual choice of date for humorous groups. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the recent GA review failure of this article, I am going to ask has LiteralKa remained neutral in their editing of this article? If not then I support the suggestion that he recuse himself from editing it. And I am going to side with Prodego here in that this article needs a LOT better sourcing than it has now.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to "innocent until proven guilty," you should provide evidence of guilt instead of asking us for evidence of innocence. WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why a failed GA review has anything to do with my being neutral? LiteralKa (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article needs better sourcing, yes, but you are allowed to use a small amount of primary sources from the subject for certain basic information, such as the founding of the site. We have no reason to believe that the information is false other than that it's a "trolling website". Which is certainly not reason enough. Silverseren^C 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well as the article says, they "trolled several prominent websites and Internet commentators, including members of blogging culture, Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN." So I'm sure they would never modify their website to troll a prominent website, such as Wikipedia. I'm sure they would never spam or troll our IRC channels, vandalize pages, or harass users. All of which I'm sure I have never witnessed. I am sure they would never extend that to adding false or misleading content to Wikipedia. Prodego ^talk 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• But what exactly is the issue if they're saying they have a different founding date? It seems a bit extreme and pointless for them to change it, but if they did, so what? Their founding date will be wrong then, but sourced properly. There's nothing we can do about that and it really isn't a big deal. Silverseren^C 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the goal is to write an encyclopedia, factual accuracy is paramount. The threshold for inclusion may be verifiability, not truth, but there are plenty of verifiable falsehoods out there. Let's not include suspect facts. Prodego ^talk 01:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• But every other source that would have the date is going to quote the date that the GNAA have on their website anyways. So there isn't going to be a way to get a proper date. Of course, this is all hypothetical as it is, because we have no real reason for believing the founding date is wrong on the GNAA website. It is a perfectly suitable source for basic facts about itself until we have reason to believe that it is making false facts. Silverseren^C 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I do have reasonable doubt in that the website was registered in June 2006. Do we have any evidence of the existence of the organization before then other than on that website itself? Dmcq (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I see that the Scotsman has a reference to their website from 2005. The date first registered mustn't mean what I thought it did. Dmcq (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Did everyone forget about "gnaa.us"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that and the fact that the GNAA could (God forbid we use common sense) be older than the website. Oh, and the article itself is older than `gnaa.eu', if you had done your research, that would have answered a few questions. LiteralKa (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

For those who aren't already aware, a possible conflict of interest has been alleged regarding this article. I've added the {{COI}} template to alert readers to this. Discussion of the issues involved can be found at WP:ANI#GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking. Robofish (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, two contributors to the article, Murdox and LiteralKa, are the President and 'Head of Wikipedia Editing' for the organisation, respectively. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when am I the "Head of Wikipedia Editing"? Do I get a pay raise? LiteralKa (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#GNAA_COI.2C_OWNing_and_votestacking – Now that the issue has been resolved, should the COI tag be removed from article? Are there any loose ends left to settle? Is the article currently written in the neutral POV? If not, what should be done to clean up the article? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm still a little concerned that GNAA members edit the article at all, but the net effect is now mostly positive, so no harm done. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

GNAA website

It seems to be down and has been like that for a while. --♣thayora♣ 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's back. Mythpage88 (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

drive-by tagging

hi. i saw someone tagged this article as having multiple issues. however, since the issues raised by the tag have either been addressed above, or were not made clear by the tagger, i have removed it. if the tagger wishes to re-tag this article, please feel free to discuss your issues here first. kthx -badmachine 08:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)