Gay Nigger Association of America
Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Note: the FAC can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America and this is the third peer review it has been on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:
- Stability/Edit Wars/VFD's
- Motives need to be known
- Length
- Need to list some members (listed a few)
- Dead links (have been removed)
- Nomination is seen as trolling/nominator (that is beyond my control)
- Original research
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think they are now addressed: see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's part of the groups name, so we cannot use stars to mask the name. Most of the time, the group is refered to as the GNAA in the article. However, in the lead section, we mentioned about the terms being racial slur against African-Americans. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Plus, if this becomes Featured, I will make a request to not put this on the front page, since this will be a vandal magnet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. —
Stevey7788 (
talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- We began to get more support votes, and some of the people who objected before changed their minds after their objections have been resolved. Some objections were about the person who nominated the article, we had one symbolic object, and others who objected due to stability. I do not know what the rules are for an article to become "stable." That is also why I am here: still trying to see what I am missing before I send it to FAC again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. —
Stevey7788 (
talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? -- Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and removed succesfully. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Gay Nigger Association of America
Ok, a FAC was closed recently about this artcle, and it was starting to get very ugly. Because of that, it was hard to fix some objections. I want to know if what do I need to do in order to get this up to Featured Status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Note: the FAC can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America and this is the third peer review it has been on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
For those who cannot seem to find out what some objections here, here is the list. I added my comments in the brackets:
- Stability/Edit Wars/VFD's
- Motives need to be known
- Length
- Need to list some members (listed a few)
- Dead links (have been removed)
- Nomination is seen as trolling/nominator (that is beyond my control)
- Original research
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think they are now addressed: see Gay Nigger Association of America/FAC Objections for a summary. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Although I know that Wikipedia is not a place to mask offensive words with asterisks, some African Americans could be severely insulted by the mere presence of the phrase "Gay Nigger". The article is also the target of reckless vandalism and has seen many disputes. We need more research on what what the goal of the article is. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's part of the groups name, so we cannot use stars to mask the name. Most of the time, the group is refered to as the GNAA in the article. However, in the lead section, we mentioned about the terms being racial slur against African-Americans. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Plus, if this becomes Featured, I will make a request to not put this on the front page, since this will be a vandal magnet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. —
Stevey7788 (
talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- We began to get more support votes, and some of the people who objected before changed their minds after their objections have been resolved. Some objections were about the person who nominated the article, we had one symbolic object, and others who objected due to stability. I do not know what the rules are for an article to become "stable." That is also why I am here: still trying to see what I am missing before I send it to FAC again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's also very hard to get it to FA status. The topic itself is controversial, even though the article has references and shows as the result of very hard work. The FAC page for GNAA is very big, confusing, and full of arguments. I don't think a second FAC will be very productive. —
Stevey7788 (
talk) 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If I read WP:WIAFA correctly, stability refers to "Should be mostly static, and not change rapidly from day to day." While things are getting added day to day to the article, the concept of the article remains the same: Intro, members, attacks and reaction to them. But, if those sections are being changed around on a constant basis, then I can see why the article is not considered stable. As for the edit waring, this is what the above site says "Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes)." I do not see vandalism as an obstacle to the edit waring, since every page gets vandalized in their life on the Wiki. Plus, the last problems took place a month ago, but the issue was resolved when the waring edits left the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
"The GNAA have succesfully trolled Mac OS X users several times." What consitutes a "successful" troll? Who establishes the criteria? How can this statement be factually accurate and verfiable? -- Tabor 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I will go ahead and removed succesfully. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)