| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gay Nigger Association of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 30 days
 |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
 | Gay Nigger Association of America was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | On 13 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to GNAA. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
| On 22 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gay Niggers Association of America. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
@ Shibbolethink's talk page is semi-protected. Special:Diff/1108664708 is not accurate, the citation [1] 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.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[...]
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.
[...]
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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
[2] 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)
- 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
[2] 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)
- 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.
- A normal process of
WP:BRD.
84.250.14.116 (
talk) 21:39, 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
Jtbobwaysf: I beg your pardon? --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE --- Tbf69 P • T 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- According to their website, it is described as the same group reborn
PalauanReich (
talk) 20:53, 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)
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)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gay Nigger Association of America article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 30 days
|
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
|
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
|
| Gay Nigger Association of America was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| On 13 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to GNAA. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
| On 22 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gay Niggers Association of America. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
@ Shibbolethink's talk page is semi-protected. Special:Diff/1108664708 is not accurate, the citation [1] 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.
84.250.14.116 ( talk) 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[...]
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.
[...]
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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
[2] 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)
- 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
[2] 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)
- 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.
- A normal process of
WP:BRD.
84.250.14.116 (
talk) 21:39, 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
Jtbobwaysf: I beg your pardon? --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE --- Tbf69 P • T 19:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- According to their website, it is described as the same group reborn
PalauanReich (
talk) 20:53, 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)
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)