Talk:Garden Gnome Liberation Front

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Added template:fiction to the article as the article lacks encyclopedic information about the organizations in question, and instead treats the issue of garden gnome-liberation as if it were a serious and pressing issue. Also, the article is messy, disorganized and generally needs to be cleaned up. When I first read the article, I very nearly thought I had somehow made my way to Uncyclopedia! -ryan-d 11:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the article. As you can see I wrote that the gnomes are fictional but I assure you that the group that liberate the fictional beings are not. It is not a fiction article so please don't keep reverting the article every time I fix it up. Thanks--Woodenbuddha 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're telling me that these groups liberate fictional gnomes? I am very confused, and so would any other normal-thinking individual be if they stumble across the article in its current state. You seem to know something about the subject matter, could you please clarify clearly as to the nature of these so-called garden gnome liberators? I'll leave your edits for now, but I'm going to re-add the {{fiction}} and {{confusing}} templates to the top of the article. -ryand 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are groups that believe that gnomes are living. They need some help granted but they still believe in the rights of the gnomes. The gnomes are garden gnomes so in that sense they are real but in the sense that they are living that is false. I will change the page so it says so more clearly....--Woodenbuddha 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of the label. Compared to the large and exponential number of articles requiring cleanups this one is a marvel. What happens here, is a case of both national and cultural problem. Obviously the stuff was partially derived from a french movie, and I suppose having seen the movie will help understanding the article.

So now the issue becomes: is it a private piece of information (such as in "private joke") or not? The answer is that as wikipedia popularity increases, the number of "private" articles (only understood by a small number of people) increase too. What matters is that these people find the information in wikipedia. Dilane 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what matters is that the article is accessible to a general audience. Wikipedia articles don't exist only for people familiar with the subject matter to read. If I wanted to do a school assignment or a research paper on garden gnomes, this article would be utterly useless to me. Added {{context}}. -ryand 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Obviously the stuff was partially derived from a french movie" -- Gnome liberation did not begin with Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001). Neither coincidence nor correlation supports your statement since most of these organizations and sanctuaries preceed the film by a number of years; in fact, the groups may well have inspired scenes in the film, though I can't say for certain. 10:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Upon searching for "Garden Gnome Liberation Front" (in quotes) I receive 12,000 results, which include CNN, and other news sources. I realize that notability can be argued, but I'm pretty sure that those results clear the notability hurdle for wikipedia standards. The news sites should clear up any notion that this article refers to a hoax. Clearly some hyperbole is involved amongst the group, but that can be clarified (not mirrored) in the article about the phenomenon. 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The most notable of these references need to be included in the article, otherwise the entire thing is unverifiable. Gwernol 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Each of mentioned organizations or websites must me mentioned in reputable publications, otherwise these will be removed. Wikipedia is a place only for well-known pranksters and kooks. `'mikkanarxi 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)'s actions have been mentioned in numerous media in Belgium and Holland including national radio and tv channels

You did not understand my warning. Every mentioned organization in the article must be supplied with a footnoted reference to a reputable independent source per wikipedia:Verifiability. is not a reputable independent source, sorry. `'mikkanarxi 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

SPOOF article[edit]

This article is clearly a spoof and a victim of vandalism, or at best, a joke article that needs to be excised. Wikipedia is not the Uncyclopedia. None of this content is really verifiable, and much of it seems to present itself as if these are serious groups with serious agendas. There might be one or two fruitcakes out there deluded enough to be serious about this sort of thing, but the honest truth is, almost all of the people engaged in this stuff are pranksters. The article should be written from that point of view and give a more encyclopedic account of this type of prank. Giving names of organizations as if they are serious groups is silly and counterproductive, unless their notability can be established through proper sourcing. And even then, they should be described for what the are, groups of pranksters. --Lendorien 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have removed usourced material, and a link or two. Article is a little less of a spoof now. Any material added must be sourced!--Lendorien 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Excellent[edit]

The line "when the cop opened the trunk he had the gnomes in there" is probably the best thing in the world. Please do not remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I've done a significant tidy on this article. Problems with it were;

  • Although the article title is Garden Gnome Liberation Front, the article text had been changed to "Fronts", plural. This seemed to open the door to every band of non-notable individuals who wished to call themselves the "Garden Gnome Liberation Front" who want to add their exploits.
  • As above indicates, the notability of the Garden Gnome Liberation Front has been contested. The only notable cites I could find were about the organisation in France. So I have removed all the other uncited references in the article about outfits in other parts of the globe.
  • Claims that the organisation is international don't appear to be reliably substantiated, so removed.
  • The article as a whole has the difficulty that the subject is a "prank organisation". It is therefore difficult to take its claims as factual and encyclopaedic. The article should therefore try and obtain its facts from notable third-party sources, and only those that are not indulging in humour.
  • Uncited additions are just as likely to be hoaxes as they are not notable and are not acceptable.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)