Talk:GNAA (disambiguation)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Deletion
I've read through a few of the RFD archives- I hope you'll excuse my not reading through and memorizing all of the reasons why the article was deleted, since wikipedia is not exactly my day job; I would add the organization to the list because it seems pretty bleeding notable to me (about 3,380 for GNAA + "gay nigger association of america" from google), it seems like most of the people vehemently trying to raise the page are so-called enemies of the GNAA (from rival *chan trolling groups), while those vehemently campaigning for its deletion are members of the GNAA themselves, probably vying to prevent their own Eternal September, or as their *chan rivals would say, "Cancer". I would suggest that there be a contest of sorts to find the most NPOV article on the GNAA and have it protected immediately as it is clearly (intentionally) offensive to many different groups (homosexuals, people of color, people of the jewish faith, and furthermore general internet carebears). On notability, I'm pretty sure any argument to the notability of the GNAA on the internet is a good joke. Anyone who used the internet prior to 2005 and even after has at least once been hit with their lastmeasure or something similar, not to mention other internet trolls, especially the ones from 4chan's /b/ forum, are given far more attention in far longer articles. On snowball, WP:SNOW doesn't apply when the GNAA is well-versed and expertly powerful at astroturfing techniques, I guarantee that every outcome of RfD cases was a result of GNAA astroturfing. In the most recent RfD case, the vice president of the GNAA voted to "delete" although this was caught and stricken, mistaken for a hacked account. On verifiability, it's not like organization doesn't have its own webpage and newsletter. The only problem is you can't enter the URL for their website in most forums or message boards, as most webmasters have put in place special content filters for the pattern GNAA or GNAA.us (this is not a joke). Finally I think forging a decent, informative, verifiable page out of the GNAA (which is quite possible) would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Wikipedia can provide useful information to people of all tongues and nationalities regardless of the disgust that certain cultures might hold for the particular subject. I think the largest problem with the third-party opposers is that they associate not-deleting a GNAA article with tacit approval of the GNAA's existence, when such a position is tantamount to approval of censorship. As the oft-misattributed quote goes: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --66.100.35.58 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion, but this conversation has been had dozens of times. "Notable" is a word that gets thrown around quite a bit, but here on Wikipedia it has a very specific definition. (See the policy and this discussion on the topic, if you care) When GNAA meets our definition of notable then they will get an article. It's not a matter of us not liking them... we have tons of articles on subjects that reasonable people disdain. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of deletions?
Why are the 10th and 11th AfDs deleted? LiteralKa (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- There was an MFD on them IIRC. Which shouldn't have passed in my opinion, keep for historical reasons is what I say. Mathmo Talk 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
.
On google, the second result for "GNAA" points to www.gnaa.us I was surprised it wasn't mentioned. (probably for being politically incorrect)
Too lazy to login, 203.218.95.12 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia hates the GNAA like Hitler hated Jews, and won't allow for them to have an article. Nothing personal.
76.165.249.198 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe this page used to be about the troll organization, but GNAA lead troll timecop was banned for his "war+on+blogs"+timecop&btnG=Search War on Blogs, getting Tony Pierce's [article deleted]. Family Guy Guy (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been hearing about the infamous internet-troll collective GNAA for years, but I have never heard of a single of these other acronymic organizations listed here. The decision to remove all reference to the troll group seems to me to be completely absurd. I only discovered this issue from reading the edit wars page, so I have zero intention of making any edits, but I think the decision that has been made is grotesquely mistaken. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks the decision was grotesquely mistaken may take the matter up at "WP:DRV". -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
yeah
ditty from source code of article:
<!-- THING: If you're going to add Gay Nigger Association of America to the list, don't. It's been discussed ad nauseam with multiple AfD's and thousands of lives lost.
RESPONSE TO THING: ok, so what happened? where can I see a record of the discussion? what's an AfD? -->
why I'm actually here:
my edit summs are pretty explicit. any probs please discuss. thank you, have a nice 3 weeks. HeadsCanBeLargelyAkin2Wholes 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
o, oops I see it the stuff I was asking about. derr. HeadsCanBeLargelyAkin2Wholes 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It makes wikipedia look biased.
It makes wikipedia look biased if you don't include the other GNAA [you know which one I am referring to] simply because they trolled this site. I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be a neutral, accurate and COMPREHENSIVE encyclopedia. By failing to include the other GNAA, it makes Wikipedia admins look like they break from neutrality at the slightest sign of pressure. Seriously, include it and people like me, who know about the drama and weren't part of it, will feel a little less doubtful about your neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.192.49 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence in reliable sources that the article you wish to see created would pass Wikipedia's notability standards? People show up here every few weeks and demand that the article in question be created, but they provide no actual verifiable evidence which would support that such an article would stand up to Wikipedia standards. See WP:BURDEN. You want the article created; provide the reliable sources! --Jayron32 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Jimbo's own summary of the situation sums it up well. The article would exist if sources exist. Sources do not, so the article should not. --Jayron32 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply
I have excellent evidence. The site exists. It is well known to many people and it was even involved in an incident that got national attention affecting millions of computer uses and aired on prime time MSNBC (I remember it and I didn't even know what GNAA was at the time). Ignoring it's existence doesn't make for good encyclopedic knowledge. It makes for censorship and bias. I'm pretty sure this site is about neutrality, but I could be completely mistaken. I understand that the title may offend some users, but then again, it might help them prevent clicking on the wrong url and it's only a matter of time before they make a new one. You only look bad not remotely attempting to protect the internet unsavvy, among other such things like acting like you never had any emotional engagement with GNAA (which given your reluctance to protect users from it, surely seems to be the case). This site is supposed to be about free access to information organized in a concise manner, not the withholding of information and the inclusion of personal emotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.7.99 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this won't boot me for the edit, but I'll try it. Again, MSNBC aired it on prime time a few years back. Just because there's no on-line source doesn't mean several tens of millions of people don't remember that ENTIRE WEEK's worth of coverage! Last time I checked, my memory is pretty spot on. I'm not going to go looking for off-line footage of it, because I have a life to attend to, but I am saying that there should be some sort of mention of something that was involved in a national issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.7.99 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- "I think I remember seeing it on a TV show" isn't a reliable source. See WP:RS for more info on what constitues a reliable source. There is no doubt that it exists; however mere existance is not the minimum standard for inclusion at Wikipedia. There are millions of things that really honest-to-God exist (me, for one) which do not currently meet the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article. Again, find some sources we can all see all see. It needn't be a web-based source; print sources (books, magazines, journals) work fine too. It just needs to be something that someone could checkup on. --Jayron32 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to see the CNN report featuring the GNAA site "jewsdidwtc.com", see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk . The site is no longer online, but it is recorded on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20070324065444/jewsdidwtc.com/ . I find it absurd that the GNAA has been featured on national television, in academic publishing (see below), and many other sources (The Scotsman newspaper, countless other web pages and blogs) and is not on Wikipedia. 93.97.190.32 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Source
please see this, (german book), would this count as a source? I think it does.--59.56.87.155 (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- A source for what? What information are you saying it supports? Chillum 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)