Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America/Attempt 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Gay Nigger Association of America

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 1 August 2005 (→[[Gay Nigger Association of America]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gay Nigger Association of America

This is partly a self nomination. There are no facts in the article that are not referenced, and this is a detailed and comprehensive view of the GNAA.

Please note! featured articles are not necessarily main page articles! Objects must be actionable, so if you dislike the GNAA and wish to object solely based on this criteria, your objection will be discounted.

Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I have been working with Ta bu on this one, and we took the trolling out and made this article into something special. I do agree that this article should not appear on the front page. It will be asking for trouble. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is way too short for a featured article. Ambi 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an entirely actionable objection if you had bothered or were capable of reading all of four lines down (The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own) Ambi 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you should specify exactly what information you're missing, or at least I would consider the objection inactionable. /Peter Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What information is missing? The length is only a problem if stuff is missing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own. Ambi 10:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd add that the article is not that much shorter than Heavy metal umlaut, over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Unlikely ever to meet the stability criterion - plus all those VfDs!!! jguk 07:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article, where it clearly states that "stability" refers to the edit history (ie: no edit/POV wars), and not petty vandalism or VFDs which do not change the article's contents (plus, there will not be any more VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The VFD's have been stopped, and plus (surprising enough), the last additions to the article mainly deal with the hoax related to Harry Potter. Though I do agree it is short, there is nothing much we can add that can be considered factual and could borderline on trolling. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Article is very stable. The only thing not stable was a short disputed sentence and the fact that I think the logo is notable enough to include in the article. That's about it really. As for VfDs - well, there will be no more of those. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. 24 foot notes for a very short article. I know we all like referencing and notes, but this is going overboard. It's disruptive to any reader that isn't used to notes (the overwhelming majority) and will annoy anyone who's used footnotes enough to know that an average of one note per sentence is nothing short of disruptive (most academics). Keep the objective in mind here, everyone; it's an encyclopedia article, not a paper. /Peter Isotalo 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article and Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is entirely actionable. A featured article must follow the style standards of the rest of the encyclopedia, and having seven references in a not particularly disputed paragraph is just not done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of academic papers. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unactionable objection. The objection is also contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. I must say, this is the first time I've every heard anyone complain of too many references. However, if you don't like notes, then may I suggest that you check out how to hide them by going to Template talk:Ref? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not contrary to Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's not being argued that there shouldn't be references, but instead that this is an insane number, even for an academic paper. Thus it is very actionable. Ambi 09:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry?! Every fact has been disputed at some point, so every fact has been referenced. Ambi, this is not an actionable objection! For the record, however, which of the sources would you remove? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an example, why on earth do we need seven references to illustrate one small incident about releasing Apple screenshots? This is excessive. Not to mention that I think it's pretty damned rude to go around declaring every objection unactionable before making any attempt to fix it. Ambi 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rude huh? Sorry you feel that way. However, what's wrong with the 7 references? If you've been paying attention, everything about this article was controversial and all activities were disputed, so this is why there are so many references. This was demanded, and so this was provided. As for "fixing" what I consider unactionable - just exactly how did you think I was going to do that?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps if you'd actually thought about the objection before denouncing it as unactionable. I know the article was controversial, but don't you think seven references for one small incident is a bit of overkill? Ambi 11:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is just as actionable as saying there are too many pictures in an article. Any reference that exists solely because of dispute on the talkpage should be looked over for example. /Peter Isotalo 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed some redundant references already from the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say this is not so much "unactionable" as "shouldn't be acted on". Would that more of our articles were so strongly referenced. This actually has the apparatus to let someone verify it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • That other articles are poorly referenced doesn't excuse the fact that this article is over-referenced. If an article is over-referenced it makes it harder to actually concentrate on the information that is relevant. And I really don't like this suggestion that eventhough the objection is actionable, it should be ignored; that's just bad manners as well as a bad precedent. /Peter Isotalo 10:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing Ta bu is trying to say is that whatever event or thing the GNAA pulled off, we have to reference it or people will consider the page is just being used for trolling. Of course, we could send some references to the external links section of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:Gnaa.png is used under "fair use". As such, the current copyright owner needs to be listed on the description page, and a rationale as to why it can be used under "fair use" needs to be provided for each page that the image is used on. --Carnildo 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets all the criteria for a FA, is well written, appears stable from the history... just because I don't like the GNAA don't mean I can't support an article about them on Wikipedia. (Vote by User:WegianWarrior on 03:54, 30 July 2005).
  • Object. Too short for a FA and too many references (yes, this is an actionable objection, because it makes the article hard to read). Also violates the third rule of what a featured article is: ("Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).") In all honesty, this reads lke an advertisment for a troll organization rather than an featurable article. The fact that it's been nominated as an FAC could be looked at as an act of trolling itself. --FuriousFreddy 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most, if not all of these objections are objectionable. —RaD Man (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. While I don't agree at all with the constant calls for deletion of this page, I don't think it's Wikipedia's best work. I agree with Ambi's objections above (which are actionable). It would be interesting to note whether GNAA has objections to file-sharing/blogging/internet forums (as one source seems to indicate) or whether they're just having fun. Dave (talk) 20:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • This objection is actionable in part (wrt file-sharing/blogging/internet forums), provided that such information does indeed exist, which is unlikely. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This objection is entirely actionable. I laid out problems with most of the article which still haven't been fixed, and I think information on their motivations is kind of crucial. I'd be very surprised if there isn't any information about it around, considering the amount of GNAA material around. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. It's too short, and I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place? David | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a valid, actionable objection. Read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). As stated below, these people are anonymous and any speculation about who they are or what their motives are would be original research. -- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once again, this is perfectly actionable if Brian reads past it's too short. What about I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place don't you understand, Brian? It is pertinent information - we have virtually nothing in this article about how they work. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly do you want us to do this when they are all (very deliberately) anonymous? If I did write something, it would be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all their years on the internet, I'm sure GNAA must have said something about this. Are you telling me you've both read everything there possibly is to read on the subject? If you can't be bothered to research something, then fine - but don't you dare call people's objections inactionable because of it. Ambi 01:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, I have been around for a long while. If a GNAA member was revealed, then we most certainly would have heard about it because something would have been done to them (prosecution, revenge, etc). Nothing is known about the membership. Objection remains unactionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't just assume "they've been around for so long, so there must be more information out there that you have not found" (appeal to probability or some other fallacy). You can suggest that you would like to see information on ____, but if no information is ever provided, you can't claim that the article is incomplete unless you know for a fact that the information does exist. -- BRIAN0918  05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neutral. In the lead, it says the name was chosen because people are still uncomfortable talking about gays, and because "nigger" is a slur, but then it later says the name was derived from the movie Gayniggers from Outer Space. If this is sufficiently clarified in the article, assume I support. It's an informative look at trolling techniques and the internet's methods for stopping them. For those opposed to it's supposed shortness, read Wikipedia:What is a featured article: featured articles need only be comprehensive and not too long/detailed (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). -- BRIAN0918  05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - The article does not discuss the motivations of the group. Without this information, reading the article is unsatisfying. Cedars 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC, it does say their motivations are unknown, which, unless someone on Wikipedia is able to find one of them and have a sit-down interview, I think it will remain true that their motivations are unknown. If this is correct, then there is no more information that can be added, so it would be complete. In other words, your objection is not valid/actionable. -- BRIAN0918  16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes you so sure that there is no information around? The GNAA has been on the internet for years, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't talked about their motivations somewhere. Just because you're too lazy to research an objection does not make it unactionable. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How did I become a contributor to the article? I simply replied to the FAC page for the article. I am not one of its contributors. Also, your reasoning is chock full of fallacies. Have a nice day. :)  BRIAN0918  06:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbolic object on the grounds that I feel this should not be an article at all, although I am aware that is an invalid grounds for objection. Everyking 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection - The article is about a small group of Internet trolls: it is barely worthy of an entry separate from Slashdot in the Wikipedia, let alone featured article status. A number of the external links that either broken seem to be broken at the moment or go to advertising messages or "register with our site" text rather than good credible sources. The article doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's best work. --Mysidia 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    • This is not a valid, actionable objection for obvious reasons. At most it could be a weak/minor objection with respect to the external link problems, but two bad external links does not a featured article not make... or something like that.... -- BRIAN0918  00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that this is the worst behaviour from article nominators that I have ever seen on FAC. The whole idea of objections is to see that they're fixed so the article can become a better FA, not to try and find reasons for discounting them (which here amounts all too often to "I can't be bothered fixing them"). If you want the objection to be dealt with, fix the external links issue. It would take you all of two minutes. But then again, you'd rather declare it inactionable because you can't be bothered, like you have with all of the rest of these. Ambi 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a better referenced article than many other featured articles on Wikipedia, and does a good job treating the subject of trolling organizations. —shoecream 05:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid, actionable nomination. --Golbez 06:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Attempt_1&oldid=20032961"