Talk:NAFO (group)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeNAFO (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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 7, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
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"?

Information Warfare??[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Query of rename to "meme"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NAFO Commandos[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Does this really warrant a Wikipedia page?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Adding (No Relation) to the Tobias Fella citation.[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NAFO_(group)&oldid=1221154258"