Talk:NAFO (group)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stop removing sourced content.

@Praxidicae -- if you have a valid, policy based justification for removing sourced material as you've been doing, please explain it here. Otherwise, please stop citing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which are wholly inapplicable to the content you're reverting. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It literally is - you're including a list of people as notable members using sources that don't explicitly say it, among others. As an admin, you should know better. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Know your meme

It is my understanding that Know Your Meme is reliable for this particular kind of topic. Volunteer Marek 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KNOWYOURMEME suggests otherwise. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's user-generated so it isn’t the sort of source we should be citing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the individual RSN discussions it looks like a slow drift towards "more reliability". 2010 - Not reliable, then 2011 - lean towards some of it's reliable (and apparently there's some fact checking and editorial oversight) then 2013 - "reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content" and then 2020 split between "not reliable" and "decide on case by case basis"

Anyway, I'll try to find other sources for the tagged text. Volunteer Marek 17:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Notable memes

If you have any reliable sources for “expansion is non-negotiable” that would be a good addition to the notable memes section. jengod (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I collapsed the whole section into a larger one about the history. There is nowhere near enough coverage for the sections -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense! jengod (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Should article discuss pre NAFO community that this movement originated from?

What are your opinions on that matter? MemeFluential (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources you can cite, sure. jengod (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Only sources on NAFO are memories of it's members. MemeFluential (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Then you probably need to get them interviewed and quoted in some kind of marginally credible news source. “An Oral History of NAFO” kind of thing jengod (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Russian diplomat got into an online fight with NAFO, the North Atlantic Fella Organization, a group of online cartoon dogs, over who "pronounced this nonsense"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220831191957/https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/08/31/a-virtual-army-of-impish-cartoon-pooches-is-waging-war-on-russia
  • ALT2: ... that NAFO, the North Atlantic Fella Organization, raised funds to cover the Ukrainian "Super Bonker 9000" in Shiba Inu memes invoking "NAFO-Article 69"? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220830143102/https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzp7n/nafo-memesters-paid-ukraine-to-paint-their-memes-on-a-tank
  • Reviewed:

Created by Volunteer Marek (talk), Kleinpecan (talk), Jengod (talk), and Guerillero (talk). Nominated by Volunteer Marek (talk) at 08:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

• All hooks have issues. Main hook must have a word or two missing as it is incomprehensible. ALT1 is too over-the-top (a subjective judgement) and too generalizing. ALT2's citation link is broken. The Vice article is still up, though, so I did manage to verify it. Overall, all other needs are met but there are deficiencies. Recommend linking Signmyrocket.com with ALT2. I'd approve that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The "missing word" is on purpose. It's a meme. Not supposed to be grammatically correct. If you'd like, we can put quotation marks around it ("pronounced this nonsense") although that's kind of "explaining a joke".

The "subjectiveness" of ALT1 is straight from the source (pokes fun at the failure of Russian air defences to prevent an attack on Saky air base in Crimea on August 9th

Thanks for pointing out that SIgnmyrocket has an article, I did not know that and I linked it as you suggest.

(Also, I have to do the Q4Q which I'll do shortly) Volunteer Marek 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To add a bit, I actually want to withdraw ALT1. "What air defense doing" has become more than just a reference to Crimea or even to air strikes. Volunteer Marek 18:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

But if you want a slightly unconventional hook then how about just:

"did you know who pronounced this nonsense?"

Presents as a puzzle and very attention grabbing. Volunteer Marek 18:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To put it into DYK format:

• ALT 3: ...who pronounced this nonsense?

I kinda like it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I like it too. Volunteer Marek 20:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I like ALT3, as well. It really is an attention grabber! Radzy0 (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed Court-martial of William T. Colman [1]. Volunteer Marek 20:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• ALT 4: ... that a media studies professor called the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO an "actual tactical event against a nation-state"? jengod (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, I'd still go with ALT3. Not sure most people really care what media studies professors (or any professors for that matter) really think. Volunteer Marek 04:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

source: https://www.politico.eu/article/nafo-doge-shiba-russia-putin-ukraine-twitter-trolling-social-media-meme/

ALT 4B ... that the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO have been called "an actual tactical event against a nation state"?

my notion is just to give it a *little* context for the totally uninitiated! Cheers all. jengod (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I'm not sure ALT3 would be allowed to run as a regular hook, since it's without any context. However, I believe it might make a great April's Fools hook – if you can endure to wait that long. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That's wait too long of a time. If not the ALT3 (though WP:IAR!) then I'd go with the original. Volunteer Marek 03:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we please have a decision on this nomination? Thank you. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Pbritti as the reviewer. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice work. Approve ALT3 and ALT4B, preference to a perhaps silly DYK team member allowing ALT3, as it is far more fun. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

"A perhaps silly DYK team member"? Well, that's practically pinging me! ;) ALT3 might be allowed if it had strong article support (see Template:Did you know nominations/Pronunciation of GIF), but I'm not sure the article is quite in shape. Some issues:

• This article gives quite a bit of WP:DUE weight to Russian propaganda outlets by quoting and citing them directly – can inclusion be justified with reliable secondary sources?
  • This is rather moot, given the first point, but the third and fourth paragraphs of "Russian response" appears to contain WP:OR.
• This isn't a part of the DYK criteria, but isn't Doge still under copyright? Can a work count as public domain if it's using a copyrighted image without a license?
• Is Newsweek a reliable source to justify inclusion for its claims? What about Task & Purpose?

I think I'm gonna put this article on hold while we try and work out some of the kinks with this article. This is hilarious, though, cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I think all of those are valid complaints. I will do another round of trimming. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero:, @Theleekycauldron: please let me know if anything else is needed. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

When Guerillero signals they're ready for a second round of reviewing, I'll update my tick – in the meantime, just waiting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please take another look, tlc --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I still see Newsweek and Task & Purpose hanging around – neither seems to be reliable for this article. I'd also question the Modern War Institute. As for the hook, I'm going to ping BlueMoonset as a sanity check – I may slightly lean towards running the hook, but I imagine that someone else would want to pump the brakes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, to answer your ping, my opinion is that ALT3 only works for April Fools; I don't think it works as a regular hook even without the inevitable confusion factor, and I feel sure if promoted it won't survive to make it to the main page (or would be pulled at ERRORS shortly after hitting the main page). If waiting six months for AFDay is out, then go with ALT4B (which I've just edited to more accurately reflect the quote). I've removed one of the remaining Newsweek cites because the article doesn't support the facts just before it; it's a non-primary source for the other (Kinzinger) cite, since the primary cite is of the tweet directly (rather than embedded), but if Newsweek is no longer considered reliable, it should probably be deleted as well. Other unreliable sources should also be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with ALT4B then. I've also removed the last newsweek reference and replaced it with yahoo news (the claim itself is not controversial). Volunteer Marek 18:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I posted a comment at WT:DYK, but in case it is better seen here I would like to point out that this still needs a tick from an uninvolved reviewer before it can be promoted. The last mark indicates more work is needed. Would it be better moved back to the unapproved nominations page? CSJJ104 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the problems have been addressed (with the possible exception of Task and Purpose but I'm not sure why it would be unreliable in this particular instance). Volunteer Marek 04:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging theleekycauldron, to see whether the issues have indeed been addressed and they are ready to tick, or if Task and Purpose is a sticking point (or there's another). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• - I still like ALT3, but ALT4B is also fine. I'm not sure whether this actually needs another approval, but in case it does, here it is. Radzy0 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Title

I know that this is complex due to the open DYK, but would it make more sense to place the article at North Atlantic Fellas Organization? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I vote no. I think the initialism is vastly more prominent that the written-out name, which is no more real or official, given that it’s all a very fluid online phenomenon. jengod (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Prominent people list

Need secondary sources (besides Twitter) in order to add these to the “prominent Fella” list:

• Georgia Member of Parliament Nona Mamulashvili
• Senior policy advisor for the U.S. Helsinki Commission Paul Massaro
• Journalist Michael Weiss

jengod (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jengod: They should be in prose form rather than a list -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

why? jengod (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:USEPROSE -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Mmmm…unconvincing. My argument for a list is that none of the names need context per se (they are NAFO-aligned public figures, that’s the context) but they do need location and occupation modifiers and the individual citations, which gets difficult to both read and edit in prose format. I’m on team list. I wouldn’t fuss if you changed it but I think it’s a mistake. jengod (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Also:

• Ukraine's ambassador to Japan Sergiy Korsunsky
• Malcolm Nance

Kleinpecan (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We need secondary sources -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Secondary source needed but Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis posted a picture of himself wearing a NAFO shirt. Link: https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1570106179371556867 jengod (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondary source needed but UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace (politician) per https://twitter.com/bwallacemp/status/1577274895095906305

jengod (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Groups that #NAFOArticle5 was invoked upon

• Kremlin troll farms accounts
• ordinary Vatniks
• Kremlintarians -like Mises Caucus controlled Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (@LPNH) and Libertarian Party National official account
• Democratic Party candidate Geoffrey M. Young (@GeoffYoung4KY)
• Republican Party candidate Bruce Fenton (@brucefenton)

The internet historian fella (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

History

for the history section, the Fella avatar is based the Slav Cheems meme template. The shiba inu is named Cheems and is also famous for the Bonk / Horny Jail meme. KnowYourMeme even did an interview with the dogs owner. The interview isn't user-generated, so I think its fine to cite, the origins of the image aren't so central to the article that using KYM should become an issue, as per the previous discussion above. That way there is at least some explanation for why exactly this dog became one of the symbols for NAFO. --jonas (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are probably other news articles about the dog Balltze, but here is one example https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Cheems-the-Dog-Made-Famous-By-Memes-Turned-10-15861211.php –jacobolus (t) 06:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There’s even a conference paper mentioning the dog https://library.iated.org/view/NOVIKOVA2022EFF –jacobolus (t) 06:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

RT and Sputnik

Jengod, what do you mean by "if the topic is information warfare, organic or organized, it is ridiculous to ignore RT & Sputnik response"? Kleinpecan (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean “Yes they’re deprecated sources because they’re mouthpieces for the Kremlin reporting Russian government talking points” therefore they can be understood as official disinformation actions in a information warfare battlefront. IMHO jengod (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Both sources seem misrepresented, apart from being deprecated. The first one (RT) doesn't have an archive link, wich makes it inaccessible to a "wide portion of the word". It's also mostly based on [2], my understanding is that this isn't peer reviewed (aka not RS), not sure if it was later, but using that paper seems better then citing a deprecated source just to smear it. The Sputnik article starts with "The apparent goal is", and the way the article stands supports this impression. Also sorry, I forgot that I am probably talking to a banch of Shiba Inu dogs. 109.119.236.142 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have added the archive link to the RT source
• Re Sputnik: I see no reason why a source can’t be considered “deprecated” by Wikipedia community standards and also be right about something. Stopped clocks and all that jengod (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"One might reasonably ask whether the entire mainstream media controversy over Kremlin bots on social media was just a smokescreen for far larger and more effective operations much closer to home."-->>"RT asserts, without evidence, that NAFO may be a “smokescreen for far larger and more effective [government-directed] operations” than their own “Kremlin bots on social media"

"Numerous commentators have drawn attention to the weaponization of Twitter, Facebook, et al in support of the Western proxy war in Ukraine"-->Russia Today Online (RT), a Russian state media outlet, claims NAFO is an extension of what it imagines is a larger “Western proxy war".

"Earlier Sunday, the official Twitter page of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry wrote a post of gratitude towards the "North Atlantic Fella Organization," or NAFO, which is a group of Twitter users dedicated to raising money for the Ukrainian cause in the current crisis, and the Georgian Legion in Ukraine in particular, as well as trying to suppress the Russian point of view online, primarily through memes that feature Shiba Inu and its Cheems the meme dog variant."

"The apparent goal is to manipulate the audience into believing that the target's counterarguments are invalid because they are being made in response to someone with the avatar of a cartoon dog, hijack respectful conversations taking place under the targeted tweet, and ultimately bully the target with extreme aggression into changing their opinions or engaging in self-censorship. The self-congratulatory trolling by "NAFO" members under the targeted topic also serves to intensify their psychological assault."

-->

Sputnik, a Russian state media outlet, states that NAFO is “trying to suppress the Russian point of view online” and “ultimately bully the target with extreme aggression into changing their opinions or engaging in self-censorship.”[

Thanks for adding the archive link. I guess the citations above make the problem clear enough. The Sputnik part is the less problematic, at least for the first part, the rest seems quite misrepresented. How or if it should be properly worded is probably a tough question, but the way it looks now seems quite awful. Something similar may be included if a WP:RS makes similar simplifications, but a lot of this looks like WP:OR. 109.119.236.142 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This article requires regular cleanup -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Has any RS noted the RT/Sputnik response? - David Gerard (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the arxiv paper: it doesn't seem to mention NAFO at all, the possible connection is suggested by RT, so I guess it's not usable here even if peer-reviewed and published elsewhere. It also looks quite technical, so some caveats may be difficult to spot to people not familiar with this, guess still emerging, area of research. 109.119.226.27 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(1) I changed my mind and I think leaving out Russian state outlets is best. It’s just not done in good faith so rebutting it is time-consuming and confuses the reader. (2) This was the text about the RT misrepresentation from in a previous version of the article, just in case it’s helpful later.

“ An applied statistician with the University of Adelaide who was a lead author of a study that RT claimed as proof that pro-Ukrainian online activism is “not organic,” debunked that claim. He tweeted, “I would like to point out that you have misinterpreted our results. We found that approximately 90% of ALL accounts contributing to the online discussion surrounding the war are pro-Ukrainian, not 90% of the bot accounts.” The Russian article also incorrectly correlated the study results with NAFO; the statistical analysis in question observed online activity through March 2022, before the Fellas existed. ”

jengod (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The previous version seems a bit more reasonable, it's still based on a tweet replying to a deleted tweet by some @RevStatus, not to RT. The RT article seems a bit (willfully?) ambiguos about what the 90% refers too (bots or not, some reposts were likely less careful). Thank you anyways for the reasonable response, don't think these matters should be included without some solid ref and a solid connection to NAFO. 176.247.179.105 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

References

“Reception” and “impact” mean the same thing

The sub heads are currently serving as glorified line breaks. I would urge clearer, more specific terms but my ideas have been rolled back so I would love others to take a look. jengod (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to keep things encyclopedic. Maybe swap Impact for Recognition? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tweets

Can you provide an independent source that mentions @LivFaustDieJung by name, Jacobolus? Neither source you linked to does -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Vice story says “The prolific shitposter, military twitter e-celebrity, and NAFO member @LiveFaustDieJung replied to the diplomat....”. But about 4 other news stories directly quote this Twitter exchange, either copy/pasting it into their text or using Twitter’s tweet-embed API to insert it programmatically as a block quote. –jacobolus (t) 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The slate.fr story says “Réponse cinglante au second degré du compte Ukraine Memes for NATO Teens: «Nous devons donc bombarder tous les civils ukrainiens parce que l'Ukraine menait une guerre interne et que certains civils ont été bombardés.» Le diplomate russe fait l'erreur...” – journalists often have some trouble deciding whether to name Twitter-ers by the nickname or display name. –jacobolus (t) 12:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am guessing ‘“shit-posting e-celebrity” fella @LiveFaustDieJung gave Ulyanov a “second-degree burn”’ might not be encyclopedic enough a tone for Wikipedia though. –jacobolus (t) 18:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it would not -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Politico story just calls him “someone from the movement” and hyperlinks to the tweet, while the Washington Post story says Ulyanov “made the mistake of responding to a NAFO member” (but does embed the tweet which prints the name there). Not naming people and instead referring to them generically is pretty shoddy for a journalist (or encyclopedia), in my opinion, even if their “name” is just a website pseudonym. –jacobolus (t) 13:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hi,

Is it possible to upload the image to Commons? Axlesaery (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably no, as Wikimedia Commons does not accept copyrighted images. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What about other NAFO images? Are all of them copyrighted also? Axlesaery (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The photo of the original dog ("Cheems"?) is probably copyrighted. You could try to go contact the original photographer (the dog’s owner?) and ask if they will license their photo under GFDL, CC-SA, or similar. Then afterward you could take the photo and make your own new photo collage using only freely licensed sources. –jacobolus (t) 18:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

According to knowyourmeme (so take with some salt) the original image was https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1942588-cheems ; see https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slav-cat-slav-cheebs –jacobolus (t) 07:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about this a lot and while Indoubt the case law on “digital collage as intellectual property” is very developed and/or I can’t imagine who would sue, I doubt that Wikipedia would take the risk. jengod (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I hope that someone of the NAFO members might take photo of a merchandise item that can be used in Wikimedia. It would be useful to illustrate the article in Russian wiki, for exampleAxlesaery (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC).

CSIS seminar on information warfare

This link might be of some use https://www.csis.org/events/nafo-and-winning-information-war-lessons-learned-ukraine .. from CSIS ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

1. TY. 2. dawwwww W.r.x doxxed himself in the name of Liberty. jengod (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Kama_Kamilia

Any mention of the founder's open antisemitism and unsavory twitter history would be nice. 83.25.154.222 (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Doxing people on Wikipedia is sleazy and against Wikipedia policy, see WP:DOX. This is an off-topic character attack based on inferences and insinuations, and those promoting it are for the most part pro-Russian activists, propagandists, and apologists. It’s not relevant to this page, and not verifiable by reliable sources. –jacobolus (t) 02:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) is a public figure, facing public consequences for his public actions. The media name him, not me.83.25.154.222 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Which reliable sources discuss his alleged "open antisemitism and unsavory twitter history" in the context of NAFO? Kleinpecan (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Archives of the twitter account include posts espousing Holocaust denial, several anti-Semetic tropes (1,2,3), mockery of the Holocaust (1,2) as well as support for the use of violence against American racial justice protestors (1,2). Are these sufficiently reliable? Given how ingrained in this whole trend that Kamil is (see the CSIS and Politico links posted by others) I do not see how this is not worthy of inclusion in this article. 2603:6010:3C40:AA07:90EB:B429:1B3E:855B (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"Are these sufficiently reliable?" Of course not. All of this is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and counter to the policies of Wikipedia. Bennv123 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Doxing pseudonymous people because they made bigoted comments in the past is not something Wikipedia does.

As for the comments themselves: they are not discussed in reliable sources, a hard requirement for including controversial claims into Wikipedia articles.

Moreover, it is not really relevant to this article. You’re talking about a few (very) offensive jokes made several years ago by a 20-something Central European gamer kid, which he has personally repudiated and apologized for. Then the same guy years afterward started a decentralized grass-roots movement of tens of thousands of people which had nothing to do with those earlier comments, most of whom know nothing about him beyond his ability to hack together collages of meme dogs in military outfits.

There has been a significant Russian online propaganda effort in the past few days to tar this entire movement with guilt by association (a natural follow-on to Russian claims that Ukraine is a state run by Nazis, that the current German government are Nazis, that NATO is full of Nazis, etc.), as a way to undermine perhaps the most effective public communication response ever to their large-scale disinformation system, whose primary current purpose is to distract people around the world from ongoing mass murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

If @Kama_Kamilia were notable enough to merit his own Wikipedia article this might be relevant there (if discussed in reliable sources), subject to WP:BLP. –jacobolus (t) 17:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia articles or talk pages to dox pseudonymous people as part of a targeted harassment campaign (especially when making off topic claims unsupported by reliable sources) violates Wikipedia policy. See WP:DOX, WP:HNE, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPCOI. Perhaps an administrator can semi-protect this talk page, now that IP editors are using it to advance a campaign they can’t continue on the (already semi-protected) article. –jacobolus (t) 06:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't something the IP making up or something, Kamil has acknowledged that the antisemitic tweets were his, and has apologised for them: (Redacted). Additionally, his name has been published in the press, so I don't think it needs to be redacted from this page. The problem with mentioning his tweets isn't that it's doxxing him or an off-topic character attack based on inferences and insinuations, it's that it hasn't received attention in reliable sources. The only source (beyond medium blogs etc.) I can find discussing his old tweets is (Redacted), which is unreliable. Endwise (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing reliable in any of those sources that ties a person to a username, so please stop posting it. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: his first name has been published in many reliable sources, such as CSIS, Politico, etc. In my understanding, it's not something he's hidden. I don't know why you revdel'd that. His last name is the only thing I can find only in unreliable sources. Endwise (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This information should only be included is its widely discussed in reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the links per WP:BLPTALK. Please stop --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

One of those redacted links was a link to a post from a couple days ago on his Twitter account? I don't understand... Endwise (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is his full name in a unreliable German source: (Redacted) : He, is considered a co-founder of NAFO, he recently came under pressure for a series of anti-Semitic tweets he posted just months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He subsequently deleted many of his tweets and donated $50 to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum. His tweets have been protected ever since.

Antisemitism is not cute! It is incomprehensible why you want to protect him. --91.54.17.214 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of doxing pseudonymous people. Whether they are cute or horrible isn’t part of the decision-making process on that question. Please stop. –jacobolus (t) 15:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

'Silence is Not an Option'. Silence on his antisemitism is not an option. There should be no tolerance anywhere for Kama's antisemitism. If User Jacobolus wants to use the pseudonym/Twitter handle, I don't see CONCENSUS in the discussion, but so be it. It might be a compromise. --93.211.210.17 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You can be as loud as you want about @Kama_Kamilia on twitter, facebook, your own website, a letter to your town’s newspaper, emails to your relatives, or your nearest street corner. But doxing people does not belong on Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 19:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.kyivpost.com/russias-war/founder-of-nafo-reveals-identity-discusses-raison-detre.html2A01:113F:4009:3200:41AB:A124:FE06:350B (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Added. Endwise (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 05:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Origins in Nazi babytalk(frens)

Since NAFO are just clownworld's anti-Russia contingent, I'm wondering why there's no mention of nazi babytalk and the clownworld meme in this article? 96.248.125.109 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source explaining the origin of NAFO in terms of “the clown world meme”? I have no idea what clown world is, but the article "clown world" was deleted as being not notable. –jacobolus (t) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

I don't think I read one line in this entire article that spoke about them in anything but gushing reverence. How can there be no section covering at the very least Russian coverage of them for neutrality? 220.253.26.67 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of "reliable sources" on the opposing side. Welcome to the inherent systemic bias of Wikipedia. 2A00:23C8:6FAF:1301:1117:1813:D0D5:EBAA (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There were some discussions of Russian responses, however they relied entirely on Russian propaganda outlets that Wikipedia has more or less blacklisted for repeated disinformation, and so were removed on that basis. It’s hard to find any reliable sources discussing this, but you are welcome to try. If you scroll up this page you can find some previous discussion. –jacobolus (t) 06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to try, but I think the article needs an NPOV tag while I look or in case I can't find anything that Wikipedia will accept as a source because this is not a remotely neutral article. 220.253.26.67 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether a Wikipedia article is neutral or not is based on whether it accurately reflects what reliable sources say about the subject. If there are reliable sources that criticize this group but Wikipedia omits them, then the NPOV tag might be appropriate. But if you haven't found any, or even looked for that matter, then how can you say it doesn't accurately reflect what reliable sources say? Bennv123 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that no one in the world has any criticism of a group engaging in information warfare for one side of a military conflict and that's an unbiased viewpoint? 220.253.26.67 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. But not everyone in the world is a reliable source that can be used as a source on Wikipedia. Bennv123 (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn’t. –jacobolus (t) 15:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism/NPOV

Can anyone add at least a subtitle banner that asks for other POVs/sources? FIREYSUNSET (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fierysunset: please provide reliable sources with criticism of NAFO that the article fails to utilize. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Clarify that NAFO was started on May 15, 2022.

https://twitter.com/Kama_Kamilia/status/1607895043741999105 (Redacted) 00:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not verified account. RealAspects (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The article notes (per RS) that @Kama_Kamilia is Kamil's Twitter account, so don't really think the verified thing is an issue. It's probably usable as a reliable source in an WP:ABOUTSELF-fashion, though I'd argue it's probably not due if secondary sources don't mention that date. Endwise (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise I had intended to only remove one of the duplicates but accidentally removed both. I thought I left an ES, but i guess I didn't :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

All good . Endwise (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bunshun explanation

I’m fond of this passage from the Bunshun article because I think it’s actually an excellent explanation for anyone who is not Extremely Online but still is curious wants to understand. That said, I acknowledge that it is (a) relatively long, and (b) in Google Translate English from Japanese, which is not ideal!

I’m leaving it here in case someone else wants to try to clean it up and reincorporate.

A Japanese weekly explained the NAFO phenomenon as a kind of unique counterdisinformation: "Worthlessness has meaning. For example, let's say that a Russian-backed operative account is spreading information on the Internet, such as 'Ukraine is a neo-Nazi regime' and 'the Ukrainian government is committing genocide,' for the purpose of confusion and anger. NAFO throws a stupid Shiba Inu fucking post there and ruins it. Then all will be fine. It's a chabudai-gaeshi [table flip], so to speak, that cuts through the flow up to that point. There is no need to take information that is intended to confuse you seriously."

url=https://bunshun.jp/articles/-/57123 |access-date=2022-09-04 jengod (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We need to be judicious about our use of quotes for copyright and other reasons. Much of my recent edits have been trimming them. Is there a way we can paraphrase it? -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero, does copyright protection extend to unpublished Google translations to English of content published in another language? Sincerely asking, not to be snarky. Dgndenver (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)