Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

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

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)

Issue

I was going to add a reference to the GNAA™'s FAQ page in which they state that they do not promote racism or homophobia (which is unsourced in the article), however the url appears to be in some sort of spam filter. What can be done? -badmachine 00:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Can you post the link here with "dot" instead of the punctuation or something? - Alison ^❤ 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www dot gnaa dot eu/wiki/faq -badmachine 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation 7

A claim is made that "On Wikipedia, members of the group created a page about themselves, while adhering to every rule of Wikipedia, essentially using the system against itself." However, this is impossible per WP:COI, and therefore, this claim should be removed as an unverifiable statement.--Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 00:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This was in one of the references, almost verbatim. riffic (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what the citation says and we have to follow it unless we can find an equally reliable counter source. Of course, then we would list both sides of the argument. Verifiability, not truth, remember? Silverseren^C 01:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

a couple users keep trying to pull this statement. Please note this citation comes from a book written by Andrew Lih, specifically The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. riffic (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we really suggesting that we use an internal policy to contradict a printed statement in a citation? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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)