Contents

Talk:NAFO (group): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:27, 16 September 2022

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from hereorhere Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Internet C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Guckert, Elie (2022-07-22). Pagesy, Hélène (ed.). "NAFO, ces trolls grimés en chiens qui humilient la Russie sur les réseaux sociaux". Slate (in French). Archived from the original on 2022-08-02. Retrieved 2022-08-29. "We are NAFO" – memes against waronYouTube York, Chris (2022-09-12). "Russia Rattled by a Cartoon Dog: Ukrainian Civilians & their Counter-Offensive". Byline Times. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-13.jengod (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

The result was: promotedbySL93 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... 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).[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

ALT 4B ... that the Shiba Inu memesofNAFO 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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?
• IsNewsweek 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Georgia Member of Parliament Nona Mamulashvili^[1]
• Senior policy advisor for the U.S. Helsinki Commission Paul Massaro^[2]
• Journalist Michael Weiss^[3][4]

jengod (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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."^[1]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hi,

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

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

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