Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America

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

Gay Nigger Association of America[edit]

Self-nom. After a round of Peer Review and some more editing, Ta bu felt like this article was ready for FAC again. I, who helped Ta bu fix everything last time around, agree. What we took care of can be seen at Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/FAC_Objections and I can assure you that this FAC will not be a pissing match as last time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn nomination, since people have left over it and I cannot resolve every objection. Evem if I do, people will still object. This is a battle that cannot be won. I went ahead and replaced this nom with Belarus. Zach (Sound Off) 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is good and exceeds most of our FA standards. The subject is silly, but so are a lot of other featured articles. Gmaxwell 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Oppose. They are described as an organization, but there's no mention of their structure. It says they have a president. Was he elected, or was he the creator of the organization? What other positions are there within the organization? Are there specific targets decreed by the higher ups, or is it more a loose collaboration of trolls, who hit whatever they can? -- Norvy (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We do not know if he is elected and we do not know of other positions in the organization. I have no idea how they select their targets and who orders the targets. And there is a good chance that we cannot find this out, and if we tried to get it in there, we will be slammed with a WP:NOR warning. While your objection is valid, as all are, I am not sure what I will be able to do to fix it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If it isn't publically known, our article should say it's not publically known. "Background information" could easily say GNAA's internal structure is unclear; indeed GNAA may have no real structure or actual members. Its business is conducted in secret, and those acting in its name may simply be individuals working under the GNAA "brand". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I owe you one Finlay. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I added Finlay's statement into the article, Norvy. Will this be acceptable to you, as a compromise? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
            • It's better, but it still doesn't answer my questions. The addition should also be reflected in the lead. -- Norvy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll return from my wikibreak for one quick comment -- please, please, take a deep breath before commenting on this nomination. This is a controversial topic, but not worth using excessive bold text (Raul isn't stupid, he can tell what a valid objection is) or questioning people's character. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not waste hours yelling at each other. And, as last time, I support. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. But no front page publicity Raul, K? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I will conduct a second straw-poll to see should this be on the front page. Personally, it will not kill me to have it not on the front page, but I am not sure how others feel. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I concur. If this article is promoted, I won't be putting it on the main page. →Raul654 22:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - this article does not indicate in what way this group is notable, and why their activities should be of interest to a general reader. Most of the article is taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of how people can annoy other people using the internet, and in my opinion this is not the best that Wikipedia can produce. Worldtraveller 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article does. I think you should read the entire lead section again, as it most definitely establishes the groups notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It tells me they are an organisation that tries to irritate people, but that might not even be an organisation at all. I am left mystified as to why there is such a lengthy article on them. Worldtraveller 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The lead section says nothing of the sort. It quite clearly states it is an organisation. The significance of the organisation is found in the second paragraph. Allow me to break it down for you:
          1. Members engage in such nafarious activities as flooding weblogs, producing shock sites, prank-calling technical support telephone lines, and IRC channel disruption such as IRC floods.
            These are the notable activities they engage in. They are more than just nuisance, it is positive disruption
          2. As a consequence, targeted communities generally consider GNAA members a nuisance and frequently respond with technological and social anti-trolling measures such as moderation systems to limit future disruption caused by the trolling. The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA only consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group.
            This is how the communities respond to them, which is notable in itself.
        • I hope this clears up this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Not really. I don't see how prank-calling technical support lines is in any way a notable activity, and I don't think a 'group' that does this is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. How people respond to nuisances is not inherently notable either. Worldtraveller 18:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: the "Activities" section has become quite a mess. For instance, there is one OS X hoax listed in "Website disruption" and one in "Hoaxes and spoilers". Maybe the Freenode trivia should be moved to the "Backlash" section instead. Also, the "Notable members" subsection is too long and has a lot of uninteresting stuff. I would only keep Gary Niger, the "Why your Movable Type blog must die" author, the "Last Measure" developer and the "l0de radio hour" host, and move the other ones to that list of nicknames at the end. Apart from that, the article is quite better than last time and I would support it again. Sam Hocevar 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I took out the members you did not list, since I do not think they are either notable or even members of the GNAA. I also thought that the two OX references were for two different things. One OX release dealt with the GNAA crap-flooding their websites and the other was a hoax release. I also moved the Freenode sutff to the bottom of the article, as you requested. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, there are the crapfloods, but there are also the "In July 2005, the GNAA released a 2.2 gigabyte, falsified pirate copy of Mac OS 10.4" and the "In June 2005, the GNAA created a fake Mac OS X Tiger release" hoaxes. Sam Hocevar 00:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • So, you want all of those Apple-related events to go into one category/section. If so, where should it go? Hoaxes? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • No, I just want the two OS X for Intel hoaxes to be in the same subsection. I will do it. Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Done. I now understand why we were apparently both confused, the same information was mentioned in two different places. Sam Hocevar 13:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object article still doesnt seem worthy of being a featured article, content is good but I really dont think this is an example of "exemplary prose". I definately oppose front paging this one too.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So, if I do a grammar check and conduct a poll to see if this stays off the front page, will you support the article getting Featured Status? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Alkivar, what parts need improvement in grammar? I would like to action your objection. I agree that the article should not be on the main page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object—The register of the text is uneven, varying from formal to rant-like, over-personal utterances. Some of the sections are too short—the structure needs to be rethought. There's no wider placement of the topic in socio-political terms. I wonder what the motivation of the contributors is to have this promoted to FA status. It would be embarrassing to have this title prominently displayed in Wikipedia. Tony 06:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Tony1, could you give some specific examples? I would like to action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, I don't think this is suitable for a featured article. JIP | Talk 06:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there something that I could fix, or have the other folks have the same objection as you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We would like to action this. Unless you have a specific reason why you don't like the article that is related to its content, we will not be able to action your objection. If you are objecting to the subject matter, this object cannot be actioned. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Just chiming in here - Ta Bu is correct, in that simply stating that you don't think it's suitable isn't suffecient. As the top of the FAC page clearly says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." →Raul654 22:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Wikipedia:What is a featured article says an article must be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written. This article is a constant target of vandalism. Zoe 06:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • While any article is the target for vandalism, the article has been stable and has not produced an edit war in the past few months. And, for future reference, the reverting of my edit by Ta bu one or two days ago was a mis-understanding, not an edit war. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Zscout. This article is pretty stable. Could you please advise what specific parts of the article are factually inaccurate, and could you please advise what still needs to be added to the article to make it comprehensive? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No. I am quoting the criteria for FAC status. This article fails those criteria. If you feel otherwise, then change the criteria to say that a Featured Article can be one that is obsessively attacked by vandals on a daily basis. Zoe 08:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware of that - I have read the FAC criteria also and having had at least 4 articles get to FA status I know all about this page. I asked you a specific question: you have told me that the article is not factually accurate and is not comprehensive. This means that you can see inaccuracies, which I have asked you to point out to me so that we may address them. It also means that you must know further information that we have not added to the article to make it comprehensive, I am asking you (politely) what that information might be so that we may action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Zoe - IIRC stable does not refer to simple vandalism Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I am not claiming that it's not factually accurate or comprehensive. I am claiming that it is not stable. Zoe 05:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
            • In that case, you are wrong and I cannot action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm going to very respectfully disagree with Zoe's interpretation here. The stability requirement says that articles that are changing very much on a day-to-day basis cannot be featured articles. The stability requirement was put in place (by me) specifically to exclude timely articles that change significantly by the day. However, it is not intended to apply to articles that are the subject of a lot of vandalism (all article appearing on the main page get a lot of vandalism. Are we doing to de-feature them all?) because the vandalism disappears minutes or hours later and doesn't contribute to the "day to day" changes. Anyway, so I looked at the diffs for the GNAA article for the last week, and while there were some changes, it wasn't radical - it was about average for a FAC nom, which is why I have to disagree with Zoe here. While I might not agree that this article should be a featured article (I haven't really decided yet), I don't think it can be called unstable. →Raul654 22:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object This organisation's principal claim to notability is that they have successfully trolled Wikipedia with amazing persistence. Not noteworthy outside Wikipedia, therefore, not article-worthy. Don't feed the trolls. Kosebamse 11:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you say such a thing? The only thing they have about Wikipedia is a PR, while their Naruto hoax was downloaded by tens of thousands of people, and one of their OS X hoaxes hit countless tech news sites, and was even mentioned on TV. The article does not even mention Wikipedia! Sam Hocevar 13:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I can say such a thing because I have watched the whole "Gayniggers troll Wikipedia" opera from the beginning. Some Wikipedians may consider them notable because of their tireless trolling here, but's that's all. There are thousands of trolls elsewhere who are just as attention-craving as these and may be as successfull in trolling newssites and what not. Trolling as a phenomenon is notable and article-worthy. A gang of trolls is not. Kosebamse 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Considering that the GNAA article you are referring to actually does not even mention Wikipedia, I find this to be a very strange and most definitely unactionable objection (you want us to remove material that is not there!). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The relevance of GNAA is greatly overestimated here because trolling Wikipedia is a central activity of GNAA. Wikipedia articles, and far mor so Featured Articles should be about phenomena that are notable outside Wikipedia. The article is no more relevant than, say, Ta Bu's writing style or Kosebamse's reaction to trolls. And every piece of discussion about it gives those GNAA people a little more attention, and that's what they want - they did not start an article about themselves to contribute to a collection of the knowledge of mankind, but to promote themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kosebamse 05:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • The GNAA are notable outside of Wikipedia. You don't appear to know what you are talking about. What parts of the article overestimate the significance of the GNAA? Or are you objecting to the article as a whole? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Your polemics aside, I am indeed objecting to the article as a whole. I repeat that Wikipedians overestimate the GNAA's notability precisely because of their trolling Wikipedia. Making it a Featured Article amounts to shouting to the world "A gang of idiots has trolled us and we are stupid enough to take them seriously". Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • And, technically, I am not allowed to reference anything they have done on Wikipedia. There is a rule that I was made aware of that I cannot use our encyclopedia as examples of what the GNAA has done, since it is called self-referencing. But how, exactly, I am trying to "feed the trolls." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
          • That is a good rule, because it prevents people from creating their own noteworthiness on Wikipedia. And I believe that every bit of attention that is given to that "association" is food for them. So, technically, even discussing this FAC nomiation is feeding the trolls. Unlike Usenet however, Wikipedia cannot just choose to ignore them, because they have a great degree of freedom to create their own vanity articles and unless deleted after due process these will stay and annoy people, which is why they are created. But taking said gang seriously and regarding them as noteworthy outside Wikipedia IMO amounts to feeding them. Kosebamse 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Does not "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work." While it is a good article, it does not reach FA status. I also agree with the above comments and raise a final issue of my own--how do we know that this article's FAC isn't another of this groups attempts to gain attention? If this article was selected as a FA, it is likely that the group will begin bragging about how they pulled one off on Wikipedia. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • They are already bragging about themselves, and indeed that's the whole point of their existence. Look at their website and you know what I mean. Kosebamse 14:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a little vague. What in particular is it about the article that needs improvement? Please be specific so that we can action your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The item I raised is an overall issue. On Wikipedia:What is a featured article, the number 1 issue is "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet." To me, the article is not the best that Wikipedia can offer. As a subpart of this, the article is not stable or well written. Since the article's creation, it has not been stable for more than a few days (for proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [1]). I also have concerns about the accuracy of the article, since most of the references seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy.--Alabamaboy 14:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Will review the references, however the article is pretty stable. You can't say it is not stable due to edit warring because the last edit war happened at least 2-3 months ago, and this was resolved later. I might point out that when an article is submitted to FAC it will often go through changes: Windows 2000 did, as did Exploding whale. All the changes you mention happened because of FAC. If no changes are done to the article while on FAC, we're damned. If we make changes to the article to address concerns while on FAC, we are also damned. Thus I find this rather unfair. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, my point was that there was that the article has not been stable for more than a few days over the last year. For proof of this, look at the massive, continual number of edits at [2].
  • Object. As per Tony on structure and register. I'm also very concerned about some of the references. For example: the article states that "They registered thousands of usernames en masse to mark Slashdot editor "michael" as their foe", but the referenced site shows only a few dozen; the 4chan site doesn't mention GNAA at all, despite being listed as a reference; the reference on the Xanga flooding of slashdot only mentions GNAA in a comment to a blog, which is pretty meaningless - how do we know they had anything to do with it at all?; the "membership", "notable members", "prank calls" and "shock sites" sections are totally unreferenced. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • The 4chan reference did refer to the GNAA at the time. It should have a date on the reference when it was last referenced: will check. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I reworded a the michael slashdot foe freak list setence to reduce the number of users. I took out the 4chan reference. While I know you wish to have me find references for every single attack, there was a problem I faced last time where I and Ta bu had objections for too many references. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The things that OpenToppedBus notes really do need to be referenced. Last time, the issue was more with the fact that some areas had way more references than necessary (like one Apple hoax having about five references in the same sentence when it wasn't particularly disputed), markedly interfering with flow. More references of genuinely disputed items is a good thing.
        • Given that this is a group which deliberately sets out to create misinformation, yes, I do think we need references for each claim. Also, given that they set out to create misinformation, I'm very wary about accepting references from the GNAA's own websites. If that's the best reference we have for one of their attacks, then the article should say no more than that they "claim to have" disrupted or trolled or whatever it is, rather than that they actually did. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
            • Which references are unreliable, however? The attack of the show reference is reliable, the Harry Potter reference to shock images is least credible, we should change that to their claim. The spoilers is definitely reliable. All else seems OK to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, poorly sourced/referenced, over-credulous, would feed the trolls even moreso than usual. WHBT, WHL. -Sean Curtin 00:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not poorly sourced. It has many, many sources in the notes section and every single fact is referenced. In fact, it was so well referenced that one of the objections last time was that there were too many references - which we addressed by taking out several of them. As for being over-credulous, could you refer to the exact sentences so that I may action this objection? As for feeding the trolls, that's hardly an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article makes little claim for the notability of this group outside of certain internet communities (who are far more vocal than their size would suggest). Parts of the article read, to me at least, as nothing more than a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner. Apart from these reasons, this article is far from stable now, and would probably be even less so if were to becoma an FA, and as for being uncontroversial... Rje 01:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • The group is not really notable for activities performed outside of the Internet, it would be factually inaccurate to say otherwise. Please note that this does not make them unnotable. Which parts of the article read as a list of ways to annoy people in a juvenile manner? As for the article not being stable: this is incorrect. It is pretty stable, except for the odd spate of vandalism. Your objection to it being uncontroversial... what specific part of the material written is controversial? If it is the subject matter covered, then this will not be actionable. If it is a non-neutral POV or factual inaccuracy, we will sort this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If the group are not notable outside of certain internet forums then I personally think their notability is very small. It seems to me they are a group of prank-callers, both on the internet and on the phones, with a massive ego, "The GNAA runs a conference call system, which they use to troll various companies and people, including AOL. They have produced an MP3 which combines excerpts from their prank AOL calls with the "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!". The article also contains little evidence that the GNAA are an organization, the membership section sounds like a big in-joke to me, rather than just a bunch of kids citing the GNAA when they mess around on the net. Also there is a lot of mention of individual events/attacks but hardly any of these are discussed in terms of the group, why do the "group" attack the sites they do? Finally: the article makes no mention of the group's objectives or motives. Rje 11:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        • Lack of notability is an issue with the subject matter itself. How you want me to fix their notability, I'm really not sure. Certainly the GNAA are notable enough to exist in Wikipedia, 6 VfDs have established this. As for the evidence that the GNAA are an organisation, we cited member names. How did you want me to action this? Do you want me to remove the whole section? Please state, for the record, how you want me to action your objection. I'd like to point out that one of the objections last time that the article was full of speculation, now you want us to speculate what their motives are, when noone really knows. I can't see how I can reasonably action your objection. Finally, could you please tell me which part is controversial due to being against NPOV policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Includes completely trivial source text; includes completely unimportant details; fails to convey the groups lack of importance. One illustration falsely suggests "GNAA" is a trademark. - Nunh-huh 02:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please point out the trivial source text and unimportant details so that we may sort this out. The GNAA trademark is actually part of the GNAA's logo, however I'll clarify this with a caption. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • That would be:

        GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY? Are you a NIGGER? Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!.

        • Then I must oppose the objection. This is quite notable as it's what they use in most of the crap floods that they perform. It's also in the screenshot. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't see it in the screenshot, but if it's there, It's twice as unnecessary. The article is already longer than its appropriate length, and goes into inappropriate detail. It thereby fails to meet the 6th criterion of Featured articles. You should be looking for things to cut, rather than avoiding cutting them, if you want featured article status. - Nunh-huh 21:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
            • It is necessary because the signature text identifies a GNAA attack. I have noted this to say why this is significant, thus it should resolve your objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
              • You say it is necessary, and I say it is not. That's not a resolution, it's a disagreement. Nor have you addressed the issue that a reader of this rather too lengthy article comes away from it with an unrealistically high assessment of the "group"'s importance. I believe the article is too long, you do not (we disagree over "appropriate length"); you feel the detail is appropriate, and I feel it is inappropriately excessive. So we have a fundamental disagreement over one of the criteria for featured article. - Nunh-huh 03:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Which is it? Too long or too short... the last FAC objection by Ambi was it was too short. How do you expect me to sort out two totally seperate and conflicting objections?! And I have told you that the information is necessary. We originally pasted the whole sig in, then we cut it back. If someone stumbles over the article, they will be able to identify the GNAAs handiwork by this text. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Which is it? Too long. It's just plain silly to include a lengthy sig on the grounds that someone might sometime backtrack a sig to Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Is it really right ot have a FA about a racist vandalistic orginization? Tobyk777 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. See Nazi. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • There does seem to be a difference in their historical significance, if I am not mistaken. Kosebamse 06:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course. That's not what he was asking. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Your comparison is plain ridiculous. Nazis deserve an article, and a featured one if you ask me. An internet troll gang doesn't. If I read him correctly, Toby seems to question their significance, and rightly so. Kosebamse 08:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • If I read him correctly, Toby mentions racism, vandalism and organisation. Nowhere in his objection do I see anything about Internet or troll gangs, nor could anyone infer that from what he wrote without further explanation from him. Sam Hocevar 09:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As Nunh-huh notes, fails to convey the group's general lack of importance. Methods section is still incomplete - for instance, doesn't cover any of their IRC behaviour. The "notable members" section needs work, particularly since it goes on about someone who a) isn't notable, and b) apparently isn't a member. There is no history section - the background information section should either be merged into the lead section or split off as the beginning of a history section. I'm also cynical that some of the information that this article says cannot be found actually cannot be found, particularly after the reluctance of the proponents of the last FAC for this to actually do any additional research at all. Ambi 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Will look into resolving these objections. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I actually posted a reply, but it seems to have been eaten by Wikipedia. The IRC behaviour is now complete, I have fixed up the membership section. It's almost impossible to get the history, and anything we did add would be redundant with the activities and background information sections. As for you feeling cynical, I might also be excused for feeling cynical considering that I have actually collaborated with you on another article before (Cyclone Tracy) and have already demonstrated that I am perfectly capable of researching topics and winkling out information about obscure topics. If you need further example of this, please see Exploding whale. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support can't see anything wrong with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't have a problem with this article being featured (perhaps not a main page candidate) as a general rule like some of the others, but I don't find this well written enough to qualify. It seems disjointed, which is a nebulous sort of objection that more or less sums up to "write it better". It seems... incoherant to me, and a little unorganized. More assertion of why it is interesting would be a good start, followed by organizing the various sections around a central theme of the article. Merely stating, "these guys did this and that" isn't enough for me to support it as a FA. I don't personally know much about the organization or what they've done, but on the talk and VfD pages and such there seem to be plenty who are more familiar with it. So, I'm objecting on grounds of coherance and comprehensiveness. Fieari 08:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not wish to be rude or offensive, but if you don't know anything about the GNAA, how can you say it is not comprehensive. However, I will start work on the style. I think part of the problem is too many headings. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said, I got the impression it wasn't comprehensive from the comments made by others. It may well be comprehensive, but from comments I've seen made, it might not be. You're right though, I don't know for certain. Fieari 19:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I wish to address the structure issue. The structure is not too bad, IMO. The division into background information addresses the issue of a general lack of information about the GNAA's history (a history section would really be too short), the membership section is a good idea, because it discusses what is known about the GNAA members and also points out that they are all anonymous. I have coalesced "backlash" into the activities section, as this is really related to their activies, and I've also created a lot less sections. A grammar check is possibly needed to resolve disjointedness. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I reworked the writing style of a lot of the article significantly to be more encyclopedic. In general though I think it seems a bit sympathitic to their aims and doesn't focus much on the damage caused, although it doesn't seem to be a huge problem, but it could do with some expansion. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Symbolic object (again) because I feel this is no different than a gang of hoodlums who have access to the internet, and I wouldn't want any ordinary gang of hoodlums to have an article. However, that objection is obviously not actionable so it shouldn't count. Everyking 08:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to support purely out of irritation with the other opposing votes. I labeled my vote clearly as symbolic because I recognized that such an objection could never be actionable. Others seem to have no hesitation about trying to make real objections on those grounds, however. Regardless of whether one thinks this should have an article or not, one is obligated to set that aside if one wants to vote. Everyking 04:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object As far as I can tell, this is an entire article comprised entirely of trivia. The reference section suggests thorough non-importance, as all the entries are forum threads, blogs and such. Has this group ever been featured in a published book? Newspaper? Magazine? Academic journal? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am in total agreement and I raised this very issue above. Worse, most of the references to forum threads, blogs and so on seem to be from either the GNAA, its members, or people tied in with the organization. Without references to independent source material, the article is not trustworthy. I suspect, though, that there are no solid references to this group since a Google search of "Gay Nigger Association of America" only turns up 880 hits.--Alabamaboy 13:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, just on the princple of the thing, this article by definition cannot be "Wikipedia's best work." Adam Bishop 20:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The image Image:Dattebayo.jpg is tagged as "copyrighted fair use". However, it has no source or copyright information, and if it is used under "fair use", it needs a fair use rationale, as outlined in Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. --Carnildo 03:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, vandalism magnet.
  • Comment the =pranking= section needs to be expanded. User:Nichalp/sg 06:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: I thought this had been removed once already. Oh well here goes: Basically, I think wikipedia can (and frequently does) better FAs than this. The very title is offensive to many people. However, these are not actionable reasons, the following are: The article needs to be longer and it needs some proper written references rather than internet sites. Is this organization globally notable, or even widely notable in the USA? The lead itself reports that: "The inner-workings of the GNAA are not well known, and some speculate that the GNAA consists solely of unconnected individuals acting in the name of the group" so how do we know this article is correct, the whole thing is too vague and too short of reliably attributed fact. I've read it in its entirity three times, no way is it anything approaching an FA Giano | talk 17:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)