Talk:NAFO (group)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NAFO (group) 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: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article NAFO (group), along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | NAFO (group) was a Social sciences and society 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 27, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO have been called "an actual tactical event against a nation state"? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Its being funny is unlikely to get something on Wikipedia in the long run, I think – in general the most dedicated editors would rather it be taken seriously. That said, I do think some sort of explanatory note is warranted, as without one the sentence looks (to me at least) like probable vandalism. Perhaps just a citation footnote on the name itself would do; I'm not really sure of convention for this kind of thing.
- TheJames (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- TheJames: I don't think an efn note is necessary. "Fella", as a word, goes before the name, and with the way that sentence is currently worded, I think it's plenty clear enough that Tobias Fella is the guy's name. I added in the guy's title (so now it reads "Dr. Tobias Fella") for some additional clarity tho. Feel free to add an invisible comment next to his name if you think there's a chance other editors might confuse his name for potential vandalism. Cheers, Dan the Animator 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:DOCTOR adding "Dr." or other academic titles before a name is used only when the person is primarily known by such a title; when I first saw the wording it didn't seem at all vandalistic to me, though it is humorous; just saying "a political scientist" is fine as long as the ref stays there. It should also be marked as a dead link. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup sorry about that, his doctor title should be left off. I still think the wording's clear enough tho imo. Dan the Animator 13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per MOS:DOCTOR adding "Dr." or other academic titles before a name is used only when the person is primarily known by such a title; when I first saw the wording it didn't seem at all vandalistic to me, though it is humorous; just saying "a political scientist" is fine as long as the ref stays there. It should also be marked as a dead link. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- TheJames: I don't think an efn note is necessary. "Fella", as a word, goes before the name, and with the way that sentence is currently worded, I think it's plenty clear enough that Tobias Fella is the guy's name. I added in the guy's title (so now it reads "Dr. Tobias Fella") for some additional clarity tho. Feel free to add an invisible comment next to his name if you think there's a chance other editors might confuse his name for potential vandalism. Cheers, Dan the Animator 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Protection Level
I know it is marked as a contentious topic, but I think that the Extended-Confirmed protection level may not adequately allow updates to reflect the situation on this type of post due to it's nature. Maybe semi-protection would be better? Tytech039 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- If I remember, the protection was upped because there were a bunch of editors trying to dox and defame the pseudonymous NAFO founder and vandalize the page, including editors who had made accounts. The protection could probably be dropped now though, and we could see how it goes. –jacobolus (t) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Before talking about lowering protection, there should be some discussion of proposed changes. This page has various discussions but nothing related to encyclopedic content that I can see in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- My impression is that the implosion of Twitter and its conversion from broadly used public platform to racist dumpster fire full of porn bots with no support staff has had a significant impact on all groups previously organized there. The war in Ukraine has also been relatively stable, without so much dramatic daily news as during the first year. It's not too surprising that grassroots online pro-Ukranian groups are less active and less discussed by reliable sources compared to 1–2 years ago. –jacobolus (t) 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia if the online groups have dropped down? I haven’t heard about NAFO until the Wikipedia page showed up when I misspelled ‘NATO’. Tytech039 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, topics of Wikipedia articles don't become non-notable when they fall out of the news. Plenty of subjects only get "15 minutes of fame", but can still have articles here if they were discussed in "reliable sources". –jacobolus (t) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia if the online groups have dropped down? I haven’t heard about NAFO until the Wikipedia page showed up when I misspelled ‘NATO’. Tytech039 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- My impression is that the implosion of Twitter and its conversion from broadly used public platform to racist dumpster fire full of porn bots with no support staff has had a significant impact on all groups previously organized there. The war in Ukraine has also been relatively stable, without so much dramatic daily news as during the first year. It's not too surprising that grassroots online pro-Ukranian groups are less active and less discussed by reliable sources compared to 1–2 years ago. –jacobolus (t) 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
LIFT99/Help99
I think it would be valuable to include information about LIFT99, a startup community and citizens of Ukraine & Estonia, and their involvement with NAFO. They organize the "Donation Run for Freedom Convoys," that already has raised over €6.65 million for Ukraine under the NAFO flag and delivering NAFO trucks with NAFO camouflage paint to the Ukrainian Army. Contributors to this fundraiser received patches in the style of NAFO. Given their growing influence and significant contributions, mentioning LIFT99 would enhance the understanding of NAFO's broader social impact and collaborative efforts. Jdh009 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't the article for Ukrainian support fundraiser organizations, generally; this is an article specific to NAFO. Unless we can cite reliable sources explaining how this group is part of, or related to NAFO, it doesn't belong here simply because they've imitated NAFO's patches and fundraising style. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Choose your picks, https://x.com/69thSB
- Also, connections to Lift99 and Help99 and @ragnars (one of the persons behind it) are on the website of NAFO: https://nafo-ofan.org/pages/nafo-ofan-donations . They work 'under' NAFO as NAFO 69th Sniffing Brigade Jdh009 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Twitter profiles aren't a reliable source in the context of how Wikipedia uses the term; and the "connections" above don't satisfy Wikipedia's constraints on verifiability, synthesis, and original research. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Kristo Enn Vaga, an Estonian MP and member of the Riigikogu's state defence commission and the Ukraine-Estonia parliamentary group raising money for those NAFO trucks?
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453090/
- https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7184702/
- https://www.theautopian.com/a-bunch-of-nafo-anti-russian-memelords-have-given-the-ukrainian-army-a-fleet-of-real-technicals/ Jdh009 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither your first nor second link make any reference to Lift99/Help99 anywhere. Not usable. Your third is a blog that does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and explicitly mentions that it cannot vet or verify the claims. So, no.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both those two articles mentioned NAFO, here a 3rd:
- https://news.postimees.ee/8002975/estonian-mp-to-cycle-from-tallinn-to-kyiv-for-charity
- And the gentleman in front of a NAFO car, linking to the website of the organisation. If alone isn't enough, are cumulative arguments gonna work?
- https://x.com/kristovaga/status/1788550192351834114
- https://babel.ua/en/news/106709-the-estonian-mp-came-from-tallinn-to-kyiv-by-bicycle-that-s-how-he-collected-money-to-help-the-armed-forces-of-ukraine
- His current donation run page:
- https://www.help99.co/patches/ride-for-the-victory Jdh009 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both those two articles mentioned NAFO (offhandedly), but do not mention the organization you're trying to link to NAFO. Neither does your Postimees.ee link nor your Babel.ua link; further your twitter source is considered generally unreliable by consensus. Cumulative arguments don't work either -- claims need to be *directly* attributed to a verifiable, reliable source, without resorting to synthesis or combining of sources to reach a conclusion not directly stated. It's clear that you need to review and make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's content policies before making further suggestions. Literally none of the links you've provided thus far are useable as a source for what you're claiming. This is, unfortunately, the inherent problem with covering a decentralized organization with no formalized membership or leadership criteria -- very little of it can actually be verified or sourced in accordance with our standards. For instance, you'd need a source that cites the "69th Sniffing Brigade" as being officially a part of NAFO -- I can tell you right now that it's extremely unlikely such a source will exist, because NAFO has no formal membership, which means the statement is not verifiable. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.baltictimes.com/estonian_mp_arrives_in_kyiv_after_1_700_km_bike_ride_for_charity/
- https://www.postimees.ee/8013071/riigikogulane-soitis-rattaga-1700-kilomeetrit-ja-joudis-kiievisse
- https://www.ejl.ee/toetame-uheskoos-kristo-enn-vaga-kaivitatud-annetuskampaaniat-soda-on-vaid-rattasoidu-kaugusel/
- So some of those previous linking to Help99 is not enough?
- There is a link under the text: "The parliamentarian called to support the Ukrainian army by making a donation on the website." Jdh009 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Volunteers from the “69th Sniffing Brigade” are members of the NAFO internet community, which has become a true internet phenomenon in modern history. Part of the organization is based in Estonia, the other – in Ukraine, on the basis of the Kyiv startup Hub “99.”
- Since its inception, volunteers have raised a total of €5.3 million. Cars are searched and bought all over Europe, after which they are given a technical inspection and painted in camouflage."
- https://mil.in.ua/en/news/nafo-members-hand-over-16-vehicles-and-180-drones-to-ukrainian-defense-forces/ Jdh009 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- And what constitutes membership in the "69th Sniffing Brigade"? How does one "prove" it? How does one prove NAFO membership in general? That's the verifiability problem. With regard to the sources: the BalticTimes source doesn't connect Help99 to NAFO (it does not mention NAFO at all, actually). The postimees link is a reprint of the same thing, with the same issue. Only the EJL source mentions both, but it is essentially a press release by an advocacy group with none of the traditional indicia of reliability. So at best, what we've got is one random politician doing a fundraising event with another organization that according to a single questionable promotional source, has some kind of ambiguous "cooperation" with NAFO (but no details or explanation on what that cooperation is, who constitutes "NAFO", or any other information that would allow a reader to assess the credibility of the claim). Wikipedia is not a promotional platform; it still wouldn't belong here. Either NAFO's involvement with this promotion was significant enough to generate sufficient coverage from reliable sources to merit inclusion, or it wasn't, and we shouldn't be giving it undue weight. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Both those two articles mentioned NAFO (offhandedly), but do not mention the organization you're trying to link to NAFO. Neither does your Postimees.ee link nor your Babel.ua link; further your twitter source is considered generally unreliable by consensus. Cumulative arguments don't work either -- claims need to be *directly* attributed to a verifiable, reliable source, without resorting to synthesis or combining of sources to reach a conclusion not directly stated. It's clear that you need to review and make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's content policies before making further suggestions. Literally none of the links you've provided thus far are useable as a source for what you're claiming. This is, unfortunately, the inherent problem with covering a decentralized organization with no formalized membership or leadership criteria -- very little of it can actually be verified or sourced in accordance with our standards. For instance, you'd need a source that cites the "69th Sniffing Brigade" as being officially a part of NAFO -- I can tell you right now that it's extremely unlikely such a source will exist, because NAFO has no formal membership, which means the statement is not verifiable. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- This seems out of scope and off topic here. It might be more relevant to mention at Kristo Enn Vaga. –jacobolus (t) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither your first nor second link make any reference to Lift99/Help99 anywhere. Not usable. Your third is a blog that does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and explicitly mentions that it cannot vet or verify the claims. So, no.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Twitter profiles aren't a reliable source in the context of how Wikipedia uses the term; and the "connections" above don't satisfy Wikipedia's constraints on verifiability, synthesis, and original research. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)