Talk:NAFO (group)

Relevant for Wikipedia article?

Is this website now Know Your Meme? 80.4.45.119 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If a meme is notable, then I see no reason for Wikipedia not to have an article on it. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my first thought. I really do not see why this needs to exist. Kx253 (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't meet the notability standard. Unless it can be proved that this group is not temporary and has significant coverage from reliable resources it should not stand. There are likely other places NAFO could be referenced (perhaps under a Ukrainian relief category) but not on its own. RedKaladin (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, and NAFO did receive "significant coverage from reliable resources" such as Politico, The Economist and The Washington Post, among others. If you think otherwise, you should nominate the article for deletion. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other non-biased sources? 2A02:8070:A88:9A00:802F:4A46:E81C:F285 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

new edit request

I would like the article to have a link to the NAFO website as well as talk about it. the website is nafo-ofan.org, and I think it would be a good source of validity. feel free to contact them in case you need some more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveeditingthingsc (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is already linked in the 'external links' section. If you can find reliable sources discussing the website per se, you could mention it in the article body. –jacobolus (t) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add info about the "Donbass Devushka", in relation to the 2023 Pentagon document leaks

This is from the recent Wall Street Journal article, here:

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/social-media-account-overseen-by-former-navy-noncommissioned-officer-helped-spread-secrets-a4b5643b

The fact that Donbass Devushka isn’t a Russian from Donbas, as she presented herself online, but an American residing in Washington state, was first disclosed by pro-Ukrainian online open-source intelligence analysts and activists known as NAFO.

Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a Wall Street Journal article, not a Washington Post article. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops! Corrected. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• NAFO fella 01.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This should probably be hosted at Wikipedia rather than Commons; while the original dog photo is copyrighted, its inclusion here is almost certainly fair use under US copyright law. The dog is named Balltze (nickname "Cheems"), and lives in Hong Kong with owner Kathy (at twitter: https://twitter.com/balltzehk). Someone could try to directly ask the owner for a copyright release if they want to publish the image on Commons. –jacobolus (t) 00:37, 16 May 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

In the recognition secion, add Lithuanian Prezident Gitanas Nauseda. Adding this tweet by the President as proof: https://twitter.com/GitanasNauseda/status/1659878208068624384?s=20 Glodex15 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a "reliable source" (per Wikipedia's criteria, that means an independent secondary source such as a newspaper article, academic paper, or published book, not just a tweet) mentioning this? –jacobolus (t) 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Recentness?

Isn't there a template to warn about "recent things"? Maybe it's a good idea to put it here. --Bozz (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

What precisely are you worried about? This is not a breaking news story, if that's what you are asking. –jacobolus (t) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion versus fact

I would like Wikipedia to stick to facts not expressions of political opinion. 2601:147:C000:D6E0:20A1:EBA5:15BB:F72D (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some specific criticism or is this just a general "I don't like it" kind of remark? Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 8 August 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)

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)