Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gay Nigger Association of America

[edit]

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]

  • Note 2: don't ask us for information that is not available. This is contrary to no original research. We are not investigatory journalists. Anyone who asks for sources that require extensive investigation and the creation of a primary source (as Wikipedia) is making a non-actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dispute that note is a correct analysis of policy. Taken at its extreme, an article about a extremely obscure topic could be featurable as a stub merely because no more information is available. Similar issues were raised on the failed FAC nomination for Thursday October Christian: Not every article actually has the potential to be featured. David | Talk 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you seem unable to grasp Ta bu shi da yu is that if certain basic information is unavailable, there is no way to make a proper article on this subject. Before there can be an encyclopedia article, there must be primary and secondary sources that required extensive investigation to create, so the encyclopedia article can accurately and extensively summarize the subject. There is a lot of information in the article, and the individual incidents are well-referenced, but writing a good article on the group itself appears impossible due to a lack of basic facts. Even if (and that is a big if) there is no way to properly document the membership, the article needs to discuss the methods, goals, etc. of the organization or it is just a receitation of specific trolling events that cannot even be 100% positivelky linked to the group as opposed to copycats and provide little incite into the impact of the group as a whole. While the incidents are verifiable to the extent that we know what happened, the who, why, and how remain shrouded in mystery and the subject of nothing more than speculation. Perhaps a few more years and a bit more research will lend the necessary facts to make a good article, and this stuff can certainly stay on wikipedia in the meantime, but it cannot represent wikipedia's finest work in its current state due to the unprofessional standard of the research and therefore should not be a featured article. Indrian 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • With respect, I would disagree with you. This is not to say I don't understand the argument, indeed I do. I believe an FA can become featured if we have enough information to describe the actions of the group. Someone has already noted the Weathermen who's leadership is still unknown. and I believe we possibly could have got Deep Throat to FA status before W. Mark Felt was revealed as DT. I know that you are not saying this, but I'm finding that many people are objecting to the group itself, and not necessarily the article.
      • The objections so far is that it is too short (it is in fact 15.4K long, IMO not too short), that it is unverifiable yet there are too many references (go figure that out), that it is prone to edit wars (not any more) and that it shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia (after 6 VfDs it is now exempt from another one, so it should exist). Your objection is possibly the most valid (though I disagree with it).
      • You should all also note that I've been described as a troll for submitting the article to FAC, and also have been told I'm a vandal and that I'm submitting this as bad faith to keep controversy going. This may explain why I've been so short with some of you. For the record (this is for those who don't know who I am), I have submitted many articles to FAC and got them through: among them are Windows 2000, Architecture of Windows 2000, Btrieve, Architecture of Btrieve, CUPS and Exploding Whale. I have almost always used peer review. So when people tell me about my "bad faith" I start getting a little pissed off (though I know I should stay frosty cool). The fact that I have to defend myself like this at all tends to tell me that people aren't reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will certainly go on the record to say that I do not believe you are a troll or acting in bad faith in making this nomination. I think there are people on both sides of this debate that have acted horribly, but you are not one of them. If this article becomes featured, it will not herald an end to all standards in FAC, but I will stand by my position that this article is not ready due not to the quality of what the article contains, but rather to the importance of what is missing. Indrian 03:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
          • At thais point, the article will probably not be Featured, mainly since I still need to add substance to the article. However, I and others have solved objections. Also, everyone is welcome to edit the To do list I created (see the link above). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:46, 4 August 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]
    • While a formal requirement for length is not present, if we are missing things and can beef up the article size, this objection IS actionable. If I can fix it, I can listen to any objections. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 2 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]
            • Why? The Apple incident needs one reference. It doesn't need seven for people to realise that it happened. Ambi 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree here too. If there is more than one footnote for a single event (at least for what is recognizable as a single event to outsiders), all but one should be removed. The reader to keep in mind when writing should preferably be someone who has neither heard of GNAA before nor participated in any of the VfDs or other lengthy debates about them; to this person the massive array of referencing will just seem odd. If you're adding references just because of a metadebate with other Wikipedians, think the decision over. If possible, try to use inline citations whenever possible. I'd rather see "person X said/wrote/proclaimed flame bait Y" than a footnote that is merely a link to a longer quote. Also, there's no need to use3 footnotes for several different parts of the GNAA website when the text actually says "...according to their website". That's a very good reference in itself./Peter Isotalo 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • If multiple references are ever necessary for one thing, it may be better to have one superscript which links to a footnote which then links to those multiple references, rather than have each reference separately documented one-per-line. -- BRIAN0918  17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down to half the footnotes with some clever summarizing. Good work; objection withdrawn. /Peter Isotalo 14:02, 3 August 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]
    • 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). Also read Wikipedia:Cite sources.-- BRIAN0918  00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to objection as I asked Ambi, the length of this article will only be a problem if information is missing. Also object to being called a troll, when I am clearly not. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Could be looked upon as", meaning not definite, but possibly. I apoligize if it was not your intention (although you should be able to see how it could very easily be interpreted as such). Now, when this article was first nominated, it was clearly not of featured quality status. It is significantly better now, but I'm still not certain that this article is "non-controversial" and does not have "ongoing edit wars". As such, but since my previous objections were rectified, I am changing my vote to neutral.--FuriousFreddy 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:WIAFA, "non-controversial" doesn't refer to just any old controversy, but to neutrality and factual accuracy. Are you suggesting that the article shouldn't be supported because it is not neutral or not factually accurate? "Ongoing edit wars" doesn't refer to petty vandalism, but to significant and repeated reversion/edit wars over content (for neutrality/factuality concerns). Do you see evidence of this in the article's recent history? (If you are referring to a VFD, that is not an edit war or concern over neutrality/factuality, but a concern over notability, and the fact that it has easily survived 6 VFDs should indicate that the majority of people consider the article to be notable and its content to be at least decently written so as to make sense). -- BRIAN0918  14:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)
  • 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]
          • My objection is perfectly actionable. Firstly, 'too short' has always been considered an actionable objection to a FAC: it means the article is not sufficiently comprehensive. Secondly I do not accept that the only possible writing on what life is like inside the GNAA must be original research. It isn't exactly the KGB or Mossad and there are plenty of books available which explain what people working for them do all day. Are there not former members around? And anonymous people are not necessarily silent. This information does exist (because there are some members of the GNAA), and I simply do not accept that it can't be found. David | Talk 08:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. (Addition: It would also be helpful if the "Activities" section was broken up using subheadings). Thanks to Zscout370 for addressing all my concerns. 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]
        • If there is information around, please provide it. I happen to know that the information that you are asking for is not available: this is a quite deliberate action on the part of the GNAA, as they are intensely annoying, and some of their actions could be seen as criminal. Do you think that the slashdot owners wouldn't have taken measures if they knew who they were dealing with? No offense Ambi, but either provide the information or please refrain from asking for information that is non-existent. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I launched the GNAA an email, seeing what I can get from them. I asked for their motivations, why they hate blogs and how many members they have. Well, it will be ironic that they hate file-sharing networks since they admited to using Bit-torent to share the movie Gayniggers from Outterspace. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:04, 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]
      • Agree... the subject itself can't be actionable. This has been covered by VfD several times now. Has a point with the broken links, however we often have a last retrived section. Will look into this. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:51, 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)
  • Ladies and gentlemen, I finally got a motive for these attacks. They target sites that they deem pro-Zoinist. See [3], and [4]. Also, they mention other groups they work with and the people who did the attacking. We can describe the users in a section of the article, and another section for the groups they work with, like ANUS [5], [6]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: For the same reasons that I have been in favor of deletion: No names, no addresses, no motives, no verification, in other words. Encyclopedia articles are for verifiable subjects. That there have been attacks by people who refer to GNAA, that there have been attacks that other people say were like the GNAA, is one thing, but until names and documentary history can be presented, this is original research. The other axis for objection is that of importance. An FAC on a polypeptide found only in fish in the arctic ocean is on a subject with stable reference, verifiability, and, as well, on a thing with more significance than the most celebrated Internet circlej "phenomenon." When the authors can say something about the real people, we can be sure that there is a single group involved and not just a name tossed about for jollies. When the authors can demonstrate that the group, which is definable by motive, objective, and identity, has a place either as an off-shoot of a larger political act or as an ongoing struggle, then they can demonstrate that the so-called GNAA is significant enough to be a featured article. And, having written this, queue the petulant foot stamping accusations against me for daring to vote according to Wikipedia standards. Geogre 12:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Ambi: It is this level of objection to the article's contents (ie verification that actions are actually by the GNAA) that has required so many citations to be used in the article. -- BRIAN0918  19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the objector, we can publish user names, but I do not think we can post contact information in the article. That will amount to it being spam. For those who wish to speak to the GNAA, they can just go to their website. We cannot verify an address too, but when have they ever done stuff offline anyways? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The large amount of attention and controversy have made this article quite accurate and well-referenced. Distasteful though it may be, this is now a mature and stable (once the VfD trolls have been taken care of) Wikipedia article. --TexasDex 19:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support because there are few articles so carefully looked over as much as this one. This falls into probably the top ten percent as to peer review, and is rather high in popularity. I cannot see people objecting to this except on the basis of content, which is not a valid objection. Ich 19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Completely Strongly Oppose. Article is way, way, way too short. Lacks any images other than the logo. It's existance on Wikipedia is disputed. My opinion of the nominator, after the Doctor Who 'joke' and nominations such as this has unfortunately waned. Hedley 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added two images last night: one of their sig and one topic they crapflooded. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion of the objector, after reading this nasty little personal attack, has also waned. And don't give me that Doctor Who crap: I have apologised for this many times, and that has nothing to do with this FAC nomination. I have not done anything like it since then. The article will remain on Wikipedia as it has passed 6 VfDs and you know it. There is more than one image on the article. Please explain what information is missing from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its existence on Wikipedia is not disputed. It has been disputed in the past, but the disputes have always come out in favor of keeping it. Not a valid reason. Images have been added since your opposition. Besides, it was never a valid objection since Featured articles in the past have had no images. The only objection that might be actionable is the "too short" statement, although this isn't in WP:WIAFA, and can only be actionable if content does exist that can be added. It's that simple: if an article is allowed on Wikipedia, and is comprehensive, then the length shouldn't matter (unless it is too long; ie: overly-detailed). -- BRIAN0918  14:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh really. So if I go and VfD it now, which is perfectly in my rights, it isn't disputed? Hedley 15:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would suggest reading WP:WIAFA completely. As it says, the only thing close to talking about not being "disputed" refers to neutrality/factuality disputes. You can go ahead and VFD it if you want, I'm sure the Wikipedia community will like you for that. Until then, its notability is not disputed, and its neutrality/factuality is definitely not disputed. -- BRIAN0918  15:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more to the article, I was wondering if yall want to come back and read it again, seeing if I am missing anything else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [7] for a comparison of then and now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The article can still be improved a bit. For instance, more information on the members can be found in one of the l0de radio hour recordings ("meet the gnaa" AFAIR). As for the motivations, Why your Movable Type blog must die, even if a personal essay, seems to give a good example of a target (the blogs) and why the GNAA hates them. Sam Hocevar 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. When an encyclopedia article cannot provide a name (other than "TimeCop") for the founder and president of a movement, I'm inclined to believe that there isn't enough information available to write a feature-article. And yes, that's an actionable objection. --Scimitar parley 15:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's not "actionable", because there's nothing anyone can do about it. The only thing your objection could apply to in WP:WIAFA is comprehensiveness/length, but if we've both defined an article's subject as being notable (as we have through 6 VFDs), and the article's content as being comprehensive (no other known information exists that can be added), then I don't see how it's a valid objection. -- BRIAN0918  16:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One could apply your argument to articles such as the Weathermen: who founded the movement? Who exactly were the leaders? How bad is it for the reader if this information is not known, since what is important is the actions and declarations of the group, not the identity of its individuals. Would you have objected to Deep Throat as well two months ago? And anyway, it's not impossible to find timecop's real name. But since for all his GNAA actions he is always referred to as "timecop", not his real name, he probably does not wish this information to be publicised. Sam Hocevar 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if it's possible to get TimeCop's real name, get it, include it, and my objection will disappear. Thus, it clearly is an actionable objection. As for the fact that he may not want his identity published, the concerns of an internet troll are not that high on my priority list. Since the information can be obtained, and is not included, but probably should be, the article is not comprehensive enough. --Scimitar parley 17:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. based on the guidelines, this does not meet FAC standards. #3: "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." (emphasis mine) the GNAA article although quite well written is a constant point of contention, see the 5 or 6 VFD's its had, not to mention which it is a constant troll/vandalism target. To me this hits the "ongoing edit wars" part square on the head. It also does not meet all of standard #2: "Be comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-written." as a subject of vandalism and edit wars it does not classify as stable IMO. Thats my $0.02 anyway. 64.222.238.123 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (oops forgot I wasnt logged in.)  ALKIVAR™ 16:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All articles are subject to petty vandalism (especially main page featured articles). Vandalism is not an edit war. This article isn't undergoing edit wars. As the standards stated, "uncontroversial" refers to neutrality and factual accuracy, which has nothing to do with notability (the reason for the VFDs). -- BRIAN0918  16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged/removed several of the citations and references. A suggestion for lengthening the article would be to quote some of the press releases/references within the article. This will help expand some of the small paragraphs and make the article seem less like a bunch of random incidents. -- BRIAN0918  17:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'support this article has really made it to feature status Yuckfoo 18:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:GNAA press release.jpg is claimed as GFDL. I don't think you can do that, not when it's a screenshot of two copyrighted programs, has at least four trademarked/copyrighted logos prominently displayed, and is a screenshot of a large block of copyrighted text -- and there was no creative effort involved in making the screenshot. --Carnildo 18:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This cannot be a featured article in its current state. While this is a group that may be gaining notoriety on the internet, too much of the information is entirely speculative. All of the information on members, policies, goals, leadership, etc. is speculation. As Geogre points out, there is currently no way to create a verifiable encyclopedia article on the group, which therefore puts this into the realm of original research. While many individual events are well-chronicled and well-referenced in the article, it is impossible to discern how these individual events relate to the organization as a whole due to the lack of neccessary background information. I am sure someday this group can be put into proper perspective and perhaps be turned into a first-class encyclopedia article, but it cannot be today. Indrian 18:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't exactly "actionable" in that nothing can be done about it. -- BRIAN0918  18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • These objections are actionable. To gain my support one would merely have to provide the proper documentation and perspective. If the objection cannot be acted upon because such information is unavailable, then the article should fail as a matter of principle. Indrian 18:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not necessarily that such information is unavailable, but that it doesn't exist, and any speculation would be original research. So essentially nobody there is "no action that can be done to correct your objection", so it's "not actionable". -- BRIAN0918  18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We expect the best from our featured articles. If the subject matter does not allow for the best, then the subject matter does not warrant being featured. You seem to think being featured is the natural state of an article, and all objections must involve ways to bring it up to FA status. Sometimes, based on current information, it's simply not possible to bring it up to FA status. Imagine a very well-written, well-sourced article on the seventh Harry Potter book - would you vote to feature that, even though it is entirely unverifiable? Perhaps I should say This is not a valid objection to a valid, actionable objection? Simply put, Indrian gave you the possible action - that you are unable to undertake it is your problem, not his. That you are unable to fix the article does not render it automatically good for FA status. --Golbez 18:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well said. If Mark reads nothing else from this entire monstrosity, I hope he reads Golbez's comments above. Dave (talk) 19:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • How is it my problem? I did not nominate the article nor do I care to do the necessary research. I'm simply replying to the various (expected) objections as I see fit. I do believe all articles can become featured. If any information is not known or cannot be known, then one simply says "this information has never been documented", such as in the Deep Throat article before his name was revealed. -- BRIAN0918  19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The fact that I can almost always be sure that Wikipedia will have content relating to developing social themes and trends remains one of WP's strongest attractions for me. This article helps to demonstrate the scope and immediacy of WP's content. Some of the objections made here strike me as unduly pedantic -- the article is well sourced, long enough to be informative, and worth featuring. -- Adrian 19:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I mean Support (what, this is not a VfD? yikes!) Now seriously, the article is well written and meets the criteria. The subject itself is not controversial, rather the existence of the article itself is, and that existence has been established definitely after 6 VfDs. I also support as per Adrian's comment above. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 01:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good piece of work on something obscure. pamri 02:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that this is a bad-faith nomination and oppose the attempt to bring the ugliness of VfD to FAC... — David Remahl 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relax. This is ridiculous. I know second graders who are more polite than the some of the users posting here. Addressing objections does not require explosive and insulting responses. I'd like to thank Zscout370, as he seems to be one of very few calm and rational wikipedians contributing here and to the article itself. If possible, I want to see more of his kind of contributions, relating to the individual members and activities of the organization. There are several very short sections, and more information related to those topics would be great. Even so, this is a support, because it's unclear whether or not more information like this is available. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. It's as comprehensive as an article on the subject could be, without being too detailed, and I didn't see any edit wars when viewing the page history. However, after reading other people's remarks, I'm still unsure about the copyright status of Image:GNAA press release.jpg. If it is tagged correctly, assume my full support. Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is on a source where little information is known. A short article is therefore expected. Having long been a reader of FAC, and having most of WP:WIAFA memorized, I know this article can pass muster. By the way, if you copy the entire article and paste it into Microsoft Word, it is eight pages long. If you copy and paste the enitrety of this ridiculously overwrought FAC discussion, it is 17 pages long as of this posting. RyanGerbil10 04:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why not. --Golbez 17:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, I am not sure anyone knows this, but Raul654 has removed this from the main FAC section and another admin closed this debate by placing a template on the GNAA talk page notifying us about it's failure to get FA status. I sent this article to peer review so I can let the folks from here tell me what I have to do to get this article Featured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't a properly closed FAC require a vote tally, and require the counting admin to reveal himself? --Golbez 17:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not think so, but I can perform a tally if you wish. I am just going to count the supports and objections, but I will also count those that are disputed, since everyone was (except for one symbolic objection). Once I figure that out, I will add to my To do list and see what happens at the Peer Review. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • (A) The FAC is not a vote; one major objection is enough to kill a nomination; (B) the "counting admin" (the person who failed this nom) is me; on the FAC, it's (almost) always me (with maybe 3 or 4 exceptions in the last year). →Raul654 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America/Attempt_1&oldid=1138461387"