Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:38, 12 July 2011 editProdego (talk | contribs)30,033 edits →GNAA as a citation for information about itself: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:27, 15 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,386,053 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 6. (BOT) 
(382 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{pp-semi|small=yes}}
{{talk header|search=yes|auto=yes}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Censor}}
{{WP Internet culture|class=Start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Mid}}
{{FailedGA|05:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)|oldid=438695469|topic=Culture and society}}
}}
{{GNAA History}}
{{banner holder|text=Page history|1=
== Redirect ==
{{ArticleHistory
Removing this from articlehistory to remove error, Redircts are not an ah event.
* ]
] (]) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


|action1=GAN
== Recreation ==
|action1date=01:37, 10 July 2011
Page was recreated as a result of the March 16th 2011 DRV. ] (]) 18:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA1
|action1result=fail
|action1oldid=438696302

|action2=GAN
|action2date=09:49, 2 September 2012
|action2link=Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA2
|action2result=fail
|action2oldid=510412139

|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{old move|date=13 February 2023|destination=GNAA|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1141777755#Requested move 13 February 2023}}
{{old move|date=22 March 2023|destination=Gay Niggers Association of America|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1146157830#Requested move 22 March 2023}}
{{GNAA History}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=720
|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|minkeepthreads=4
|numberstart=6
|archivebox=no
|box-advert=no
}}


== Suggestion for small edit ==
== need for better, real citations that meet ] and lead that meets ] and ] ==


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


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.
: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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Suggested edit:<br/>
: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. ] (]) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his ], where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page.
::for number one when have press releases, hosted on wiki sites, ever been considered anything close to a good source? ] ] ] 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) Self published sources are actually fine in some non-controversial circumstances: ]. 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. ] (]) 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Non controversial does NOT apply to this article. ] ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages for amusement" ] ] ] 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::That's a bit odd to say, given the clear contradiction given in numerous citations. ] (]) 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
::I stand by my "this article sucks" ] ] ] 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::And I stand by the fact that you have yet to even come close to proving it. ] (]) 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" ] ] ] 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::: . ] (]) 04:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::you are saying that we trust "ben" on boing boing to give us content for the lead? nice. ] ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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". ] ] ] 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::We have. notice, the references section is longer than the article body. ] (]) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I never said that you suck, just that you should provide more specific criticisms about the article. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
::: Here is the section relating to usage of press-releases (Self-published sources) in an article:


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.
<blockquote>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:


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.
# the material is not unduly self-serving;
# it does not involve claims about third parties;
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
</blockquote>
:::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? ] ] ] 04:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::: I don't think these are actually editable by the public, only internally. ] (]) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::I can confirm this. ] (]) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
::::You attempted to remove the bit that explained the obviously facetious tone. ] (]) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Also, is there any reasonable doubt that ] has shampooed his ]? 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. ] (]) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


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.
== Peer review! ==


If it's the latter:
You guys if you want to get this article to GA spot, you gotta have to take some things into account:


On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his ] by causing the name of the GNAA to appear on the website's front page. It's unclear whether the GNAA was responsible.
# Expand the lead a little bit. It has to be at least two paragraphs (maybe split the one existing into two?)
# 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.
# 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


If that assumes too much or is too leading:
Cheers, ] (]) 23:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


On February 11, 2007, an unknown attacker defaced the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his ], where they caused the name of the GNAA to appear on the website's front page. ] (]) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Good suggestions, I started expanding the lead a bit. I think we can flesh this article out a bit more. ] (]) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 ==
== ] ==


{{edit semi-protected|Gay Nigger Association of America|answered=yes}}
Hi. I propose that the addition of ] to the "See also" section (which was added over a month ago in ) be restored. Per ] a brief annotation might be added to clarify the difference between the two articles if that is desired. ] (]) 18:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Copied from the talk page:
:You should also provide a reason... ] (]) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
::I support the proposal. <font face="Arial"> ]&nbsp;(])</font> 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't, as the groups have little in common, and even less interaction occurs between the groups. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Change this line:
{{Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/GA1}}


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.
== Corporation ==


Suggested edit:
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. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">]{{•}}]{{•}}]</span> 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Remember, we're talking about what people would ''think'', not the reality of the bureaucracy. ] (]) 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. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">]{{•}}]{{•}}]</span> 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?) ] (]) 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. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">]{{•}}]{{•}}]</span> 22:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I see that you've . ] (]) 03:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


On February 11, 2007, an attack was launched on the website of former US president Barack Obama at the time of his ], where the group's name was caused to appear on the website's front page. ] (]) 14:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== GNAA as a citation for information about itself ==


] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> At the time of the attack, Obama was a presidential candidate, not a former president. ] (]) 17:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
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 should be undone. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:As per ]:
:*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.
] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) :That's why the sentence says "at the time of his first presidential campaign". ] (]) 11:27, 18 July 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages contributors such as myself in the future. ] (]) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (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)
:::: http://www.gnaa.eu/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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] on ] before throwing accusations around. Again, your ] towards users as an admin is rather disturbing...) By your logic, Americans should avoid editing '''all Misplaced Pages articles''' about controversial America-related issues. A bit harsh, innit? ] (]) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 09/04/2024==
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? --] (]) 02:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


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.
: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. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I see that ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:::] ended on September 11, 2002, so 9/11 isn't an unusual choice of date for humorous groups. --] (]) 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Given the recent ] failure of this article, I am going to ask has ] remained ] 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 ] here in that this article needs a LOT better sourcing than it has now. ] ] </span>) 18:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


== Site ==
* 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. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


There's a GNAA site now called gnaa.africa, we sure it's affiliated with them? gnaa.eu is empty ] (]) 07:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Well as the article says, they "trolled several prominent websites and Internet commentators, including members of blogging culture, Slashdot, Misplaced Pages, and CNN." So I'm sure they would never modify their website to troll a prominent website, such as Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:27, 15 January 2025

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.
Article policies
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.
Censorship warningMisplaced 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:
[REDACTED] Internet culture Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
          Page history
Former good article nomineeGay Nigger Association of America was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 2, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
On 13 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to GNAA. The result of the discussion was not moved.
On 22 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gay Niggers Association of America. The result of the discussion was not moved.
GNAA discussions on Misplaced Pages
AfD/VfD
DRV
PR, GA, FAC, RFF
Draft
Signpost
Essays and the like
Misc.


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)

Site

There's a GNAA site now called gnaa.africa, we sure it's affiliated with them? gnaa.eu is empty 182.253.246.99 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America: Difference between revisions Add topic