Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

Requested move 13 February 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Gay Nigger Association of America → 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.

Wikipedia:Article titles § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations advises, 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 Talk:GNAA (disambiguation) § Requested move found consensus to redirect GNAA to this article. As to the former question, that of 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)

The Atlantic; The Scotsman

Full name in quote, not mentioned in source's voice (1)

TechCrunch

Full name 1st reference, "GNAA" thereafter (2)

BetaBeat; Lih 2009

"GNAA" 1st reference, with expansion; back to "GNAA" on later refs, if any (3)

Dean 2010; Death & Taxes; Torrenzano 2011

Just "GNAA" (7)

Attwood 2010; BuzzFeed News [1] [2]; DailyTech; KQED; Softpedia; Stereoboard; Vice

This comes out to 10–5 or 12–3 for the acronym, depending how you count it. Beyond this, most relevant Google News hits for the organization's full name are emphasizing it in the context of weev, 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 subject ... known primarily by its abbreviation? I would say yes. And in that case WP:COMMONNAME says we should move. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per these RSes, WP:COMMONNAME, and just plane common sense, i.e. WP:DFTT. We can spell it out in the body of the article but it doesn't need to be the article name. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE 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 GNAA (disambiguation). 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  This page is already the redirect target for GNAA as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'm not sure that argument holds much weight. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too obscure to be denoted by its acronym alone. Walrasiad (talk) 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. O.N.R. ^(talk) 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 WP:COMMONNAME analysis. The question for us to answer is what is the commonly-used name here, not why. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• LOL It's not a censorship proposal, but well actually it kinda sorta maybe is. Uh, no! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf: I beg your pardon? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  In addition your comments in which you admit "maybe its to avoid a slur" here appear to be WP:SOAP. Remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 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, as guessed at by random people on the Internet, 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? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  National Football League is a good example to counter your argument. We use the names, not the abbreviations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE --- Tbf69 P • T 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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^{Talk to me} 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^{Talk to me} 21:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia 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. ^(talk) 02:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

On February 11, 2007, the GNAA attacked the website of former US president Barack 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

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)