Talk:NAFO (group)

Criticism of NAFO

Why is there not, at the very least, a paragraph in the Reception section regarding the dehumanization of Russians with the term "Vatnik" and "Orc", mockery of Russian KIA such as videos on the site TikTok, Twitter and Reddit in which videos containing Russian soldiers being drone bombed are overlayed with music, and defense of acts of terror such as the St. Petersburg café bombing and the death of Daria Dugina? This article is incredibly positive towards NAFO with little to no criticism offered in response.

Part of the want for "reliable sources" should be put down considering that many news articles will ignore these in the vein of remaining in support of Ukraine, and the few that do are left out due to being seen as unreliable or unreputable. Vilo2023 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Why there aren't reliable sources about this topic sounds like a good topic for a blog post or academic paper. Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear on this point though. Using Russian state newspapers, tabloid news websites, or self-published blogs/social media posts is not really allowed as the basis for claims in Wikipedia articles. –jacobolus (t) 04:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's awfully convenient. 136.30.84.99 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedias's consensus policies about acceptable article sources certainly have their trade-offs and limitations, but something similar has been found to be more or less required for building an encyclopedia. Otherwise the site gets overrun with nonsense and disinformation from various flavors of trolls, conspiracy theorists, fringe ideologues, and propagandists. You can read the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc.) and argue for policy changes if you want. If you are convincing enough you might be able to move the needle a bit. –jacobolus (t) 02:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Your "criticisms" sound like positives. 2600:8802:571B:E00:ACF0:C807:6E87:7039 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism, however the way sources works in this site is that they have to be official/reliable. Some twitter criticism, while valid, would not necessarily be allowed. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You can add a criticism section. Many articles have them. Just make sure to cite reliable secondary sources that are not on the Deprecated source list.

Make sure to check. Most criticisms published in the press are in sources deprecated by Wikipedia. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

Please add info about Dominik Hašek to the "Recognition" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarmoFella (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dominik Hašek ("The Dominator"), former Czech hockey goalie, joined NAFO today. His honorary avatar (fella) was created by volunteers from the Czech-Slovak NAFO as a thank you for his unwavering criticism of Russian aggression in Ukraine, Russian propaganda and the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in global sport and the upcoming Olympics.

See https://twitter.com/hasek_dominik See https://twitter.com/hasek_dominik/status/1657869242769764352?s=20 See https://twitter.com/ArthurDentZarq/status/1657862696316837890?s=20 TarmoFella (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 12:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so you're telling me that unless someone writes an article about it, no mention of Mr. Hasek can be added to the Wikipedia article?

By the way, at the end of the article you have a section called "Non-independent references". Are you saying these are credible sources? TarmoFella (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. See WP:V and WP:OR. You may also want to read WP:RS. Kleuske (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these "non-independent references" are related to subjects directly discussed in the article which are included based on analysis in independent "reliable sources". The links to tweets, etc. are not (in and of themselves) sufficient support for verifying material by Wikipedia's standard, and are included mainly for readers' convenience. –jacobolus (t) 19:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey TarmoFella I don't think it is worth mentioning specific famous fellas. Most are not mentioned in secondary sources and there are many notable Fellas. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

The fact there is no mention that the originator of NAFO, who is cited in the article, @Kama_Kamilia has a history of Nazi idolization (proof linked below) as well as the far-right orientation of many members of NAFO involved in minimizing the role of Ukrainian nationalists and Nazi collaborators in perpetrating the Holocaust in Ukraine and dehumanizing Russians collectively as “orcs” is frankly absurd. I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a blatantly partisan and biased article on here. https://twitter.com/mossrobeson__/status/1581069641945784320 HoodGoose (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@HoodGoose: Twitter/X/Whatever-it's-called-now is not a reliable source. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

NAFO has a heavy presence on Wikipedia as part of its online activism, of course its article is biased. 203.214.54.59 (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

See Hitchens's razor. Bonk Vatniks. Kleuske (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Folks, please don't use Wikipedia talk pages as your soapbox. ("Bonk Vatniks" is also not appropriate discussion here.) There are many other places on the internet to discuss this if you just want a place to vent. This page is specifically for discussing ways of improving the content of the article. Any proposed changes need to be backed by reliable sources.

Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons carefully and tread lightly when discussing living people on Wikipedia, including in talk pages ("This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."):

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 11:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You have a very odd notion of "proof". 2600:8802:571B:E00:ACF0:C807:6E87:7039 (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The only mention to NAFO being Nazis are in deprecated sources such as the Grayzone. The tweet you cite is from Moss Robeson, a former journalist from The Gray Zone.

This article is not about the founder. So even if you had a reliable secondary source about the founder it would not belong as jabcobus notes Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Information Warfare??

The opening paragraph says "It has been categorised as a form of information warfare." Yet this phrase does not occur in the publicly available content of the source article, and NAFO activities do not match Wikipedia's own article on Information Warfare. To be specific, efforts to counter propaganda are not typically classified as "information warfare". To quote the Wikipedia article: "Information warfare is the manipulation of information trusted by a target without the target's awareness so that the target will make decisions against their interest but in the interest of the one conducting information warfare." Additionally, a group is not an action, so the statement is in any case grammatically incoherent. A fair and grammatically correct statement could be "NAFO has been characterized as conducting a meme war". But neither the current incorrect statement nor this replacement really add anything useful to the article. Cerberus (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The headline to the cited source is: "A virtual army of impish cartoon dogs is waging war on Russia"

The lede concludes with a direct quote from the article Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does it need to be in the lede twice though? Volunteer Marek 14:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

In the introduction paragraph a sentence needs to be added about the use of the Florks and other cartoon characters. The Florks are often a way of showing command information, such as bestowing a field hat on a cartoon character, such as a mouse that ate the wiring of a helicopter, which crashed, making the mouse one of the honorary Ukraine military. 6knots (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a "reliable source" discussing this material? –jacobolus (t) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Query of rename to "meme"

The name of the page was changed from NAFO_(group) to NAFO_(meme). This was not discussed, and I think it is inaccurate. For evidence:

• a Master's thesis that opens with the words "NAFO is a group of digital activists..." [1]
• CNN says "Nafo... is a decentralized online volunteer organization"[2]
• Washington Post mentions "groups like NAFO" [3]
• The WaPo article quotes the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense thanking "an unusually named group" [4]
• Vice describes "a loose cadre of extremely online shitposters" (colorfully echoing CNN) [5]

Overall, I think CNN's description is most accurate, and aligns more with "group" than "meme".

Ingafube (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ingafube,

Thanks for posting this and apologies for the delay in my reply! About the article move, based on the lede and information in the wiki article, it sounded more that it was a "meme movement" than an organized group so to speak. I also thought having the "group" parenthetical identifier would imply that NAFO has a centralized leadership (which it doesn't I think) and also make it more easily confused with other organizations that have the same acronym (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization and National Alliance of Forest Owners, for example).

That said, given the number of sources you pointed out, WP:RS definitely recognize it as a group and my move was a mistake. Sorry for moving the article and thanks for moving it back! :) By the way, unrelated but thought I'd let you know in case you're interested: I'm planning on gradually nominating this and many other Ukraine war articles to GA so feel free to reach out if you want to collab on improving this (or other) articles.

Best, Dan the Animator 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

NAFO Commandos

Consider adding another subsection for the NAFO Commandos. Feel free to email me if you need more info or context. JFosterjrod58 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable secondary sources discussing this topic? If so, you can add such a section yourself. See WP:V and WP:RS. –jacobolus (t) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There are none, because it's not a thing, it's a club that a few NAFO fellas who didn't understand the point of the group tried to set up and it never took off. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there are reliable sources for it, but NAFO Commandos are more than just a club, it's actively operating on Truth Social to combat misinformation there... Here on a talk page, my word should be good enough to confirm its existence. That said I really don't think there are many reliable sources... I'm not 100% sure I consider Wired "reliable" these days... but here's a link to an article about NAFO Commandos.. https://www.wired.com/story/take-down-trump-truth-social/. (I support NAFO and its operations, and I can neither confirm nor deny that I'm active on Truth Social... so I'm not really suitable to edit this article). 01:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 01:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Can you please add the fact that now nafo has a carrier strike group added to our arsenal. Chowdah hill captain of the dwight d eisenhower nuclear aircraft carrier has got a nafo fella and technically is now nafo. Thank you 80.3.242.223 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this really warrant a Wikipedia page?

It's a semi-popular twitter meme. I don't really see how it's important enough to get a Wikipedia page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:38DC:DB59:FE30:E6A5 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I get that it's notable now, but in 30 years will anyone actually be looking at this Wikipedia page? 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:38DC:DB59:FE30:E6A5 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles that almost no one looks at. As does any other encyclopedia. For the standard used to decide whether there should be an article here or not, see Wikipedia:Notability. –jacobolus (t) 11:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not many other "twitter meme" groups receive diplomacy awards from governments, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nafo-not-nato-take-the-fight-to-russias-internet-trolls-3c0b0r3k8 have members that are actually IN goverments, or raise massive amounts for charity. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NAFO (group)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DocZach (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

It is quite obvious that this article is in major dispute among editors, especially considering that it has extended protection and numerous edit wars in its history. The article itself seems to be a bit all over the place, and the organization of it makes it very hard to read. I recommend finding more consensus among editors, and rewording the article to sound more neutral and unbiased. I also recommend either cutting down the size of the article, or organizing it into more sections - because right now, it is sort of a pain to read. I hope this advice can help. For now, I don't believe this article meets the criterion to be a good article. It still looks like a work-in-progress. - DocZach (talk) 6 February 2024 (EST)

• This review has been closed, but I want to note for posterity some concerns I have that this review did not engage fully with the GA criteria or review guidance. I would support efforts by the nominator to seek a second opinion or renominate the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review DocZach! I appreciate the suggestions and will try to address them if I can but for the WP:NPOV and other prose issues, it would help if you have more specific suggestions (e.g. what specific sentences/paragraphs should I change? is there a particular topic in the article that is WP:UNDUE? how should the article be reorganized?). I think I agree with Firefangledfeathers' concerns about the depth of this review and will seek a second opinion on whether this article should be renominated as-is or needs more work before a new GAN. In any case, feel free to ping me with any questions/comments/concerns. Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@DocZach and Firefangledfeathers: Just to give everyone the heads up, I started a request for a third opinion here. This is my first time using 3O so feel free to let me know if there's anything else I should do. Thanks, Dan the Animator 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dantheanimator. I'm a 3O volunteer and I think it's a great place to seek out resolution of content disputes. For something like this, where experience with the GA process is a must, I think you would have better luck posting at WT:GA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh you're right, thanks for that! I'll withdraw the 3O and add a section on WT:GA. Thanks again for all your help with this! :) Dan the Animator 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! Started a section at WT:GA here. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Dan the Animator 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding (No Relation) to the Tobias Fella citation.

Haha I think it would be funny to put:

NAFO was described as a "Western civil society response to Russian campaigns" by Tobias Fella (NO RELATION), a political scientist training Bundeswehr soldiers in dealing with social media. It is part of a larger "battle for sovereignty of interpretation" on shared online spaces.

Plz, and ty. 2601:151:8300:1040:89C1:DF35:C3E:5E7A (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)