| Revision as of 16:04, 18 July 2024 editPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,329 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:43, 25 December 2024 edit undoEyer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,616 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 68.104.100.61 (talk) to last revision by 108.35.30.203Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| |box-advert=no | |box-advert=no | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Requested move 13 February 2023 == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ''']''' (]) 11:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|GNAA}} – I want to be clear that this RM is not born of any desire to censor this title. There are plenty of articles where including the N-word or another slur in the title is the correct thing according to policy and guidelines. I do not think, however, that this article is one of them. I'm hesitant to reach that conclusion after the massive amount of attention this article got in yesteryear, but it seems pretty clear to me. | |||
| {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Avoid_ambiguous_abbreviations}} advises, {{tqq|Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided '''unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject'''}} (emphasis added). The latter is clearly met here, given that {{slink|Talk:GNAA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move}} found consensus to redirect ''{{-r|GNAA}}'' to this article. As to the former question, that of {{tqq|known primarily by its abbreviation}}, here is an assessment of the English-language independent sources cited in the article and available online (omitting dupes and ones that don't name it at all). "Full name" includes censored variants, and typos etc. are counted as their intended meaning. | |||
| ;Full name (2): ; | |||
| ;Full name in quote, not mentioned in source's voice (1): | |||
| ;Full name 1st reference, "GNAA" thereafter (2): ; | |||
| ;"GNAA" 1st reference, with expansion; back to "GNAA" on later refs, if any (3): ; ; | |||
| ;Just "GNAA" (7): ; ''BuzzFeed News'' ; ; ; ; ; | |||
| This comes out to 10–5 or 12–3 for the acronym, depending how you count it. Beyond this, most relevant Google News hits are emphasizing it in the context of ], not treating that as the name used in general discourse. Almost no one called this by its full name. Not today, not then, not in casual discourse, not in reliable sources. I remember getting into an argument with another Wikidata admin in 2013 about whether it made sense to revdel the letters "GNAA"... the takeaway from that being, even GNAA trolls were just using "GNAA", not the expanded acronym. So is the {{tqq|subject ... known primarily by its abbreviation}}? I would say yes. And in that case ] says we should move. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' <b><span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px"><span style="color:#FC0">❯❯❯</span>]]</span></b> 09:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Support''' per these RSes, ], and just plane common sense, i.e. ]. We can spell it out in the body of the article but it doesn't need to be the article name. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per ] and the strong preference for natural disambiguation. The MOS states that "Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes." There are other things that use the acronym, as found at ]. They're not as well-known to average readers so the move would be allowed per the letter of the policy, but given that "strong preference" we should avoid moving against it absent a compelling reason. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:This page is already the redirect target for ] as the ], so I'm not sure that argument holds much weight. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I did say it would be legitimate within the MOS to have the article at either location. I just believe that given this unique circumstance a page move wouldn't be the optimal resolution here, and that since there isn't anything wrong or confusing with the current title this is a solution in search of a problem. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Far too obscure to be denoted by its acronym alone. ] (]) 17:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose move.''' Although it's the primary topic for GNAA, I don't think it should be moved there. Many sources using "GNAA" appear to do so to avoid writing the N-word. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ** I don't think it matters why sources don't use the full name. Maybe it's to avoid the slur. Maybe it's because the full name is fairly long. Maybe it's because they think "GNAA" is simply the better-known name. That's not really part of the ] analysis. The question for us to answer is <em>what</em> is the commonly-used name here, not <em>why</em>. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''LOL''' It's not a censorship proposal, but well actually it kinda sorta maybe is. Uh, '''no'''! ] (]) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Jtbobwaysf}} I beg your pardon? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::In addition your comments in which you admit "maybe its to avoid a slur" here appear to be ]. Remember, ]. Thanks! ] (]) 20:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well I sure can't argue with that logic. As in, actually can't, because I have no damn clue what you're trying to say. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You are here advocating for the removal of a slur name from an article that is about a slur, because you perceive the slur to be offensive. This is SOAP. ] (]) 01:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I am advocating for using the more commonly-used name for a group primarily known by its acronym, which happens to expand to a string that contains a slur. And I am acknowledging that the presence of that slur may (or may not be) part of the reason that sources prefer the acronym, but don't see that as relevant, since sources' motives for using a name, ], aren't pertinent to a COMMONNAME analysis. So if you'd like to actually participate in this RM rather than make things up, perhaps you would like to address the question of which name is more commonly used? <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::] is a good example to counter your argument. We use the names, not the abbreviations. ] (]) 06:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Oppose''' per ] --- <span style="font-family: 'Verdana';"><span style="color:red"><span style="font-size:120%">'''Tbf69'''</span></span></span> ] • ] 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| == Requested move 22 March 2023 == | == Requested move 22 March 2023 == | ||
| Line 102: | Line 66: | ||
| Original version makes it sound like we're awaiting a 3rd term. Update clarifies that he was president in the past but the incident happened before he was president. It could probably be phrased even clearer, but I couldn't think of anything, so I added a link. If there's a better, more specific link, then that could be used instead. | Original version makes it sound like we're awaiting a 3rd term. Update clarifies that he was president in the past but the incident happened before he was president. It could probably be phrased even clearer, but I couldn't think of anything, so I added a link. If there's a better, more specific link, then that could be used instead. | ||
| Also using passive voice makes the phrasing awkward and obscures whether the attack was committed by the GNAA or if it's intentionally not naming an attacker because there's no source providing evidence who the attacker is. If it's the former: | Also using passive voice makes the phrasing awkward and obscures whether the attack was committed by the GNAA or if it's intentionally not naming an attacker because there's no source providing evidence who the attacker is. If it's the former: Shrey K. | ||
| On February 11, 2007, the GNAA attacked the website of former US president |
On February 11, 2007, the GNAA attacked the website of former US president Obama at the time of his ], where they caused their name to appear on the website's front page. | ||
| If it's the latter: | If it's the latter: | ||
| Line 131: | Line 95: | ||
| :That's why the sentence says "at the time of his first presidential campaign". ] (]) 11:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | :That's why the sentence says "at the time of his first presidential campaign". ] (]) 11:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't find the proposed rewording clearer. Since that means there's two editors with differing opinions, it isn't an uncontroversial change. As such it needs a consensus before it can be added using the edit request template procedure. ] (]) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | ::I don't find the proposed rewording clearer. Since that means there's two editors with differing opinions, it isn't an uncontroversial change. As such it needs a consensus before it can be added using the edit request template procedure. ] (]) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 09/04/2024== | |||
| Maybe add Jax as part of Other members included, as she was more notable than many of the other members that aren't Andrew as the Biden Campaigns cybersecurity expert. | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 01:43, 25 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gay Nigger Association of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | Page history | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 22 March 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Gay Nigger Association of America → Gay Niggers Association of America – The official website calls themself that and it makes sense as there are more than 1 person in the association. PalauanReich (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a recently created website, there's no indication that it was created by the same person/group behind the original. We need RS to be able to link them and update the page. The Wordsmith 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to their website, it is described as the same group reborn PalauanReich (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- We are unable to trust this website, especially being a brand new one, for the claim that they are the official one. We need third party reliable sources, or some sort of published statement by a verified representative, something to demonstrate that this new website actually is real and not just a random person creating a new website and claiming to represent a defunct organization. The Wordsmith 21:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to their website, it is described as the same group reborn PalauanReich (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Misplaced Pages uses the WP:Common name from WP:independent reliable sources, not self-published dubious ones with claims of rebirth. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose move. The N-word in the common name is singular. O.N.R. 02:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion for small edit
I don't have an account and this page is locked. (Looks like it's locked for good reason lol.) I think this line is phrased poorly:
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of US presidential candidate (and future US president) Barack Obama, where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page.
Suggested edit:
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his first presidential campaign, where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page.
Original version makes it sound like we're awaiting a 3rd term. Update clarifies that he was president in the past but the incident happened before he was president. It could probably be phrased even clearer, but I couldn't think of anything, so I added a link. If there's a better, more specific link, then that could be used instead.
Also using passive voice makes the phrasing awkward and obscures whether the attack was committed by the GNAA or if it's intentionally not naming an attacker because there's no source providing evidence who the attacker is. If it's the former: Shrey K.
On February 11, 2007, the GNAA attacked the website of former US president Obama at the time of his first presidential campaign, where they caused their name to appear on the website's front page.
If it's the latter:
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his first presidential campaign by causing the name of the GNAA to appear on the website's front page. It's unclear whether the GNAA was responsible.
If that assumes too much or is too leading:
On February 11, 2007, an unknown attacker defaced the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his first presidential campaign, where they caused the name of the GNAA to appear on the website's front page. 2601:98A:4181:2610:D442:6516:AFEF:E506 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Copied from the talk page:
Change this line:
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of US presidential candidate (and future US president) Barack Obama, where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page.
Suggested edit:
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his first presidential campaign, where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page. EO1912 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: At the time of the attack, Obama was a presidential candidate, not a former president. PianoDan (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's why the sentence says "at the time of his first presidential campaign". EO1912 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't find the proposed rewording clearer. Since that means there's two editors with differing opinions, it isn't an uncontroversial change. As such it needs a consensus before it can be added using the edit request template procedure. PianoDan (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 09/04/2024
Maybe add Jax as part of Other members included, as she was more notable than many of the other members that aren't Andrew as the Biden Campaigns cybersecurity expert. details her surprisingly long history with the group and friendship with "weev" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:F780:1:3137:0:0:0:14 (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: