Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Actual racism

Fringe Views?

I removed the group's claims that they aren't really racist and homophobic. I think the chance that a reliable source would confirm that is almost nil, because, for example, this excerpt from http://linuxforniggers.us/download

If you happen to be black, you can learn how to burn a CD on Windows here, or how to burn a CD on Mac OS X here. If you instead wish to install Linux for Niggers™ on a stolen USB stick....

http://linuxforniggers.us/testimonials and the "testimonials" linked from it are worse. Several other similar examples abound on the group's web site, but can not be linked here because of the URL blacklist. —Cupco 21:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I re-inserted them, as they aren't self-published. Per Jodi Dean: 'the inclusion of the word "nigger" in group's name is only to elicit angry responses and to subvert or otherwise challenge long-standing social norms, noting that the name of the organization came from the 1992 Danish satirical blaxploitation film Gayniggers from Outer Space.' If we don't include the group's response, I don't think that the article would depict a neutral point of view. Dean is a reliable source, and she is the one who is cited, not a self-published source. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

When a journalist says "A is X" that means they are independently asserting the fact that they have presumably verified. When they say "A says they are X" that means that they are merely reporting that the self-published claim exists. Unless you have a source where an independent reliable source asserts that they are not actually racist and homophobic, I intend to replace the revert in question. —Cupco 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you telling me that we're only going to include one side of the issue? Mythpage88 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but not self-published claims merely conveyed by sources. Can you find excerpts from those sources where they compare the GNAA's claims to not be racist and homophobic to their output? —Cupco 22:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're telling me that the GNAA's views are not notable enough to include on their own article? Is response to criticism not allowed? I was under the impression that it was not only allowed, but necessary to maintain a neutral point of view. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:VALID: "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic". Is their own view not significant? Mythpage88 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the way you're interpreting the policy would mean that there should be no response to criticism by the subject of the article in question on any article on Wikipedia. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, only that the response to criticism would have to appear in reliable sources, not be self-published. Normally I wouldn't object, but the abundant examples to the contrary make it a serious issue. Instead of going back and forth here, why not ask for an outside opinion at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN? —Cupco 23:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And it does. The fact is though that response from the subject of the article itself, under your logic, would ALWAYS be self-published and thus unreliable. This blatantly violates both precedent and policy. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the distinction between what a journalist conveys by "A is X" versus "A says they are X"? What do you think it is proper to have in an article when the only sources on the topic are in the latter of those two forms, and there is abundant evidence that A is not X from both A and reliable sources about A? And furthermore when A are notable primarily for their unreliability and trolling? —Cupco 23:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the fact that Wikipedia includes all significant views? Guess what? The subject of the article has significant views, and if we can't use third-party sources to confirm their views, then they are impossible to include. This blatantly violates our policies. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not generally include WP:FRINGE views or include discredited views when doing so would be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. —Cupco 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you just unironically say that the subject of the article possesses a "fringe viewpoint"? Mythpage88 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that they do not? We are discussing their viewpoint that they are not actually racist, when there is no question that their publications -- probably the majority of them -- include deliberately inflammatory racist statements. I have answered your questions in detail, and you have avoided answering almost all of mine. I am no longer interested in participating in such a one-sided dialog. I have asked for an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gay Nigger Association of America where I see you have already replied. I would prefer to continue the discussion there in hopes that more people will participate. —Cupco 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Their viewpoint is a significant view, which must be included, as per countless policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the view or not, it, because it belongs to the subject of the article, is significant. The "fringe theories" page specifically refers to pseudoscientific theories, not opinions and criticism. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that a self-published claim contradicted by other publications, if not the vast majority of them, can be considered significant? They are entirely discredited because they are contradicted by overwhelming numbers of examples. —Cupco 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it contradicted? The group states that they use it for shock value. I have yet to see any source that "contradicts" that. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV views are not significant unless they appear in independent reliable sources. Are there any such sources suggesting that anyone associated with GNAA is not racist or homophobic? —Cupco 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any sources suggesting that they all are? Mythpage88 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't propose including anything saying that they all are, but it would be a likely inference from their work. —Cupco 01:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a reliable source now, would it? Mythpage88 (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Racist stereotypes" vs "Stereotypes"

Additionally, all stereotypes of african americans are racist. It's simply redundant. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "racism" has almost entirely negative connotations but, for example, the stereotype that blacks are above average in many sports is generally positive. —Cupco 22:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "racist stereotype" is redundant. The fact that they're stereotypes should be enough. And I think that the stereotype that they eat fried chicken or that they enjoy watermelons isn't negative either. In fact, all of the images (except for maybe the one with the guns, but that's also a grey area IMO) displayed don't seem to be negative at all. Mythpage88 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there are stereotypes that have nothing to do with racism, and positive racial stereotypes too. —Cupco 23:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And few, if any, of the stereotypes depicted are negative, which means that racist would carry inappropriate connotations, as per your earlier post. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're referring only to some set of screen shots and not the excerpt and linked "testimonials" cited at the beginning of #Actual racism above? —Cupco 23:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence refers to the images. Tell me where in the sentence "The site provides a download link for an ISO image which, when booted, presents users with a slideshow of images related to African-American stereotypes." it mentions the testimonials. (Hint: at no point in the article are the testimonials mentioned in the slightest.) Mythpage88 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Cupco, the only thing I can say is... [1] Diego Grez (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking you might be right. I should have bowed out when [2] was only claimed to be racist for the guns. —Cupco 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I said that they weren't negative stereotypes, just stereotypes. (Unless you can explain to me how the stereotype that african americans enjoy watermelon and chicken is negative?) Mythpage88 (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

[3] —Cupco 04:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was a rhetorical question :p Maractus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see from your user page that you claim to be the "young black man" photographed in 1973 from [4] and also a "twink". So you must be a 50+ year old twink, or perhaps a member of this organization? —Cupco 21:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow that is wildly inappropriate on-project behavior. Racism/homophobia of any kind should not and will not be tolerated, Mr/Ms Cupco. Assume good faith, please. --Zaiger (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am speechless Maractus (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Puffery

I question the noteworthyness of crapflooding, shock sites, fake leaks with shock images, and causing their name to appear on Obama's website. They are all sourced, but per WP:UNDUE shouldn't they have multiple sources to be considered noteworthy? I think that's particularly important given that members are apparently intent on getting as much as possible into the press and thereby into this article. —Cupco 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should be nuked. It continues to be a troll point for the GNAA itself, and there are only few mentions in "depth" (and not even that...depth) of the organisation. Diego Grez (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it has been up for deletion over twenty times, and the times when it was deleted, the deletion was overturned at DRV, sometimes years later. It's probably better to have a strictly conforming article as opposed to a missing article which keeps coming back as a sockpuppet-puffed zombie. User:LiteralKa/GNAA makes a convincing case that it might be better to hold your friends close and your enemies closer, and this is a surreal example of what seems to happen when it is deleted and repeatedly restored.

Are there any other trolling organizations which focus on Wikipedia? —Cupco 02:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean any other trolling organizations other than Wikipedia itself? Most of wikipedia is just troll crap articles in the first place. The entire concept of 'it takes a village' is why wikipedia a cesspool in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.117.222 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The group's reason for existence is to try to mislead people, as they admit. They have several pictures of professional looking black people on their site and in their publications. Why should we not explain that they do not appear to have any black members? —Cupco 09:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And can you discern from these photographs as to how gay they may be, coz they sure look pretty straight to me! (ludicrous enough yet?) - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

People with white skin are not of African descent per WP:CK (Well-known historical fact, Plain sight observations, and Obvious national associations.) Why would you want to prevent the article from pointing out that the group is not black? —Cupco 10:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

unless there is a source that plainly states "Blah blah so and so is of this ethnicity," we are not to look at a photograph and create a fact stating that they are. That would be violating policy. riffic (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just suggest that there are no white people in Africa? Ever heard of South Africa? Yes, there are White Africans.2605:A000:1103:F0:654D:E7FF:574C:E9FB (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.gnaa.eu/

  Triggered by \bgnaa\.eu\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: These links should be whitelisted on this article, since this article is about the website itself. Will it be possible to include these links in this article? Jarble (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

German Article

Far from crying wolf, the female sysop importing the version history told me about a personal record in immporting the 3600 Versions. Far from being erased, nobody seems to care, while the cross in biographical articles has lead to various bitter conflicts. Seems the German WP has a comoplete different view on the topic ;) Best regards Serten (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (possible BLP violation)

Sam Hocevar at Solutions Linux 2006 with GNAA shirt on

Please add {{Failed verification|{{subst:DATE}}}} after the following text in the Origins, known members and name section.

former Debian Project Leader Sam Hocevar,

While @Maractus removed a picture of Sam Hocevar (pictured) with Special:Diff/516240269 in October 2012, this also removed the only "reference" possibly linking GNAA and him relevant. Sam Hocevar's name (also @Sam Hocevar) is never mentioned in the Rede Globo source referenced; a Wayback Machine capture from June 17, 2017 also confirms this.

Additionally, the picture may or may be wanted to be added back to the article in that section. NB: User:Maractus is indef-banned for LTA. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Alternatively, please use {{Unreliable source?|{{subst:DATE}}}} if more appropriate. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Alternatively (again), {{Synthesis inline|{{subst:DATE}}}}. NB: I was unable to find a more reliable source. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done -- Flooded with them hundreds 18:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

President: Raymond Ewbank 2605:E000:3006:FE00:992D:21A2:3AF4:B663 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 12:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

sources

do we have updated links for these sources? some of them are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.195.219 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Vc querendo traduzir este artigo fique a vontade. att 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:1169:F721:FE78:59B4 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

Please censor the word “Nigger” it is highly inappropriate, and if it doesn’t change I will request Wikipedia remove all instances of the word “nigger” from the website. 98.150.115.244 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

129.126.36.103 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium

i removed the claim by "Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium" that the GNAA is a cyberterrorist group. there is no other body that makes this claim, and Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium is not known to be a reliable source for such a claim. therefore i removed the claim because it puts undue weight on a questionable source. .usarnamechoice (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

it is disappointing that Praxidicae reverted my edit without responding here. also, this org apparently had an article on wikipedia, but it was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your bold edit to get consensus, which you've not gained nor have you made any such argument that explains why it's not a reliable source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• from the site's TOU page: WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SITE’S CONTENT (sic). serious claims require serious evidence, and the claim of cyberterrorism seems unsupported by any reliable sources. .usarnamechoice (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Great, go to WP:RSN and get consensus then because it's currently used quite a lot to source these claims and there's no evidence otherwise that it's unacceptable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  it's currently used quite a lot to source these claims a quick look at the external link search reveals zero results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=trackingterrorism.org Praxidicae (talk · contribs): would you please be so kind as to show me which pages use this as a source? there's no evidence otherwise that it's unacceptable. well, i looked through Talk:Bodu_Bala_Sena#Terrorist_organization, and it seems that wp:terrorist says such claims are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. TRAC is the only site that makes this claim, so this claim is not 'widely repeated by reliable sources'. furthermore, TRAC appears to be a scraper site of wikipedia itself, and is not usable as a reliable source, per a search of wikipedia namespace. .usarnamechoice (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  it appears that Praxidicae (talk · contribs) does not intend to respond, so i will remove the material again per per policy and per the MOS guidelines. if the material is restored, hopefully the rationale can be better described here. .usarnamechoice (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, I'm waiting on a book to download to read the actual sources I found. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also do not continue pinging me. I have a watchlist for a reason. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

the discussion at RSN indicates this source is improper for the allegation of terrorism, therefore i will remove it now because it is an allegation of criminal activity which is inappropriate for wikipedia. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

A Further Exploration section with links ex. https://www.reddit.com/r/gnaarevived/ 2607:FEA8:D00:A400:E0C1:72C5:42F0:43B4 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:RS and WP:SPS. Also this just looks like nonsense Cannolis (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Female member

Known Issue: MOS:ID debate reintroduced. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink's talk page is semi-protected. Special:Diff/1108664708 is not accurate, the citation says:

Right from when I first talk to Meepsheep, in December 2017, he wants me to understand the trolling universe isn’t just made up of one type of person, despite how it may appear to me. He suggests asshurtmacfags as a great person to consider, or IRL (in real life), transgender woman Jaime Cochran. She was president of the GNAA and also a former member of Rustle League (RL), a group most well known for trolling and hacking Anonymous.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the inaccuracy? I changed it to "woman" member, does that resolve your concern? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The follow-up edit Special:Diff/1108687306 demonstrates even more tone-deafness to the source, and I am not happy with this. Jaime is a dead person, according to the same source (which you've re-cited); the previously stated past tense "There was..." was correct in the sense of time. If you want to make a(n undue) statement about the person's sex or gender identity, a proper way to go about it would be linking to trans woman. Now that undue weight on Jaime is placed into the context of racism and homophobia, without context or association why. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now it's in a different more appropriate paragraph, and past tense. Good enough? I'm not going to dignify what appears to be transphobia with a reply. No idea if the member is actually dead, and would need a higher quality source per BLP. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe the focused attention on any specific member's sex or gender is warranted more attention in the article than any other GNAA members that can be cited from the sources (book) – i.e. Meepsheep ("he"), weev ("he"), etc. If special attention is due for Jaime (which I think it may not be in this article) because of the explicit mention in the book, then the neutral viewpoint way of expressing it is linking to the aforementioned article or citing another source to support your statement. The context and timeline are okay as of Special:Diff/1108693054. Fine to also acknowledge wikt:Jaime says it's an unisex name (as unreliable as Wiktionary is).

I presume from Troll Hunting and other unmentioned sources that Jaime is dead. Troll Hunting says: At the start of 2018, Meepsheep plans to contact Cochran on my behalf to see if she’d like to talk. [...] For a few days, he waits for her to come online. Then sends another message: ‘asshurtmacfags was found dead yesterday so I doubt you’d be able to contact her now.’ [...] The Facebook page for her memorial – held on 13 January 2018 – is still live. There’s a photo of Cochran’s angular face nearly smiling as she snaps a selfie in the mirror. Below the image, her friends and family have written: Jaime Cochran: Memorial of a Psychedelic Hackress. In a scratchy video of the speeches made that day, her friends pour out their love and laughter. [...] 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@84.250.14.116, if you are uanble to achieve consensus in favor of your change, do not simply wait for others to stop paying attention and then perform that change. You do not have consensus in favor of your edit. Until you have consensus, and as it is disputed, the article should remain at WP:STATUSQUO. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A normal process of WP:BRD. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, BRD tells you that you should not continue to edit the article to remove something that others think should not be removed, when you do not have consensus on your side.

E.g. * If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to explain why you believe the attention on any specific member warrants more attention than Special:Diff/1108896532 over any other member or group of members, there is no consensus to speak about it. I have understood your concern is about due weight, and will not revert you again for WP:UNDUE concern, but I will go ahead and make a bold neutral viewpoint representation again to what the source says, because you do not appear to have a neutral viewpoint on this. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC); edited 22:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In other words, I do not belive the last phrase in the first paragraph ("GNAA has had at least one known ...") warrants any mention in the article, but I am tolerating it with the source cited. Your original concern ("removal of well sourced content") had nothing to do with what the source said, in fact, the source you've added did not directly/umambiguously support your statements. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC); edited 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The source talks about it as notable, so we do as well. That is the essence of WP:DUE. If you disagree, you have quite a few other things you can do other than edit war. A) start an WP:RFC, B) take it to a relevant noticeboard, or C) seek a third opinion. Edit warring is none of the above.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We reflect what sources say, not our personal interpretations. MOS:ID specifically states: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Your edit Special:Diff/1108905790 also added a citation to Vice, where Cochran was quoted: I don't agree with their message as a trans-woman. We're also back to square one with the issue of past tense: Cochran is also the only known... I am not disputing MOS:GID here. I am not happy with you pushing your POV on the general topic of dispute to articles, that was never the point, I don't reflect my opinions of how I see Cochran myself in these conversations or edits. It makes me question if you read your own sources at all. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)edited 22:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, due weight is no longer a concern since the Vice citation was added. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It makes me question if you read your own sources at all Please remember to assume good faith. Given MOS:ID, then I suppose we should say "trans woman." Happy to do it. Also: I am not happy with you pushing your POV on the general topic of dispute to articles again, this is a failure to assume good faith. Please redact it.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Likewise about AGF. My primary concerns have been addressed as of now. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

---

@Felt friend: I think Special:Diff/1123505958 should be reverted. Specifically for what I've said about MOS:ID above in this conversation (self-identification) and what the sources say. @Shibbolethink had agreed to this. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) I am the same IP84 editor as in above discussions.

This dude obviously has an agenda here, and I really don't care to feed it felt_friend 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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 [5] [6]; 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.