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
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
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
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
@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. ⇒SWATJesterShoot 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]
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]
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]
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 pageorWikipedia 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.
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.
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]
"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?
IsNewsweek a reliable source to justify inclusion for its claims? What about Task & Purpose?
@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]
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]
- 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 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]
Prominent people list
Need secondary sources (besides Twitter) in order to add these to the “prominent Fella” list:
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]
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]
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]
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’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]
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? -- GuerilleroParlez Moi19:10, 14 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]
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]