Talk:NAFO (group)

Does this really warrant a Wikipedia page?

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)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Adding (No Relation) to the Tobias Fella citation.

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)

Its being funny is unlikely to get something on Wikipedia in the long run, I think – in general the most dedicated editors would rather it be taken seriously. That said, I do think some sort of explanatory note is warranted, as without one the sentence looks (to me at least) like probable vandalism. Perhaps just a citation footnote on the name itself would do; I'm not really sure of convention for this kind of thing.

TheJames (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TheJames: I don't think an efn note is necessary. "Fella", as a word, goes before the name, and with the way that sentence is currently worded, I think it's plenty clear enough that Tobias Fella is the guy's name. I added in the guy's title (so now it reads "Dr. Tobias Fella") for some additional clarity tho. Feel free to add an invisible comment next to his name if you think there's a chance other editors might confuse his name for potential vandalism. Cheers, Dan the Animator 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:DOCTOR adding "Dr." or other academic titles before a name is used only when the person is primarily known by such a title; when I first saw the wording it didn't seem at all vandalistic to me, though it is humorous; just saying "a political scientist" is fine as long as the ref stays there. It should also be marked as a dead link. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup sorry about that, his doctor title should be left off. I still think the wording's clear enough tho imo. Dan the Animator 13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Protection Level

I know it is marked as a contentious topic, but I think that the Extended-Confirmed protection level may not adequately allow updates to reflect the situation on this type of post due to it's nature. Maybe semi-protection would be better? Tytech039 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If I remember, the protection was upped because there were a bunch of editors trying to dox and defame the pseudonymous NAFO founder and vandalize the page, including editors who had made accounts. The protection could probably be dropped now though, and we could see how it goes. –jacobolus (t) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Before talking about lowering protection, there should be some discussion of proposed changes. This page has various discussions but nothing related to encyclopedic content that I can see in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that the implosion of Twitter and its conversion from broadly used public platform to racist dumpster fire full of porn bots with no support staff has had a significant impact on all groups previously organized there. The war in Ukraine has also been relatively stable, without so much dramatic daily news as during the first year. It's not too surprising that grassroots online pro-Ukranian groups are less active and less discussed by reliable sources compared to 1–2 years ago. –jacobolus (t) 07:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia if the online groups have dropped down? I haven’t heard about NAFO until the Wikipedia page showed up when I misspelled ‘NATO’. Tytech039 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, topics of Wikipedia articles don't become non-notable when they fall out of the news. Plenty of subjects only get "15 minutes of fame", but can still have articles here if they were discussed in "reliable sources". –jacobolus (t) 19:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

LIFT99/Help99

I think it would be valuable to include information about LIFT99, a startup community and citizens of Ukraine & Estonia, and their involvement with NAFO. They organize the "Donation Run for Freedom Convoys," that already has raised over €6.65 million for Ukraine under the NAFO flag and delivering NAFO trucks with NAFO camouflage paint to the Ukrainian Army. Contributors to this fundraiser received patches in the style of NAFO. Given their growing influence and significant contributions, mentioning LIFT99 would enhance the understanding of NAFO's broader social impact and collaborative efforts. Jdh009 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the article for Ukrainian support fundraiser organizations, generally; this is an article specific to NAFO. Unless we can cite reliable sources explaining how this group is part of, or related to NAFO, it doesn't belong here simply because they've imitated NAFO's patches and fundraising style. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Choose your picks, https://x.com/69thSB

Also, connections to Lift99 and Help99 and @ragnars (one of the persons behind it) are on the website of NAFO: https://nafo-ofan.org/pages/nafo-ofan-donations . They work 'under' NAFO as NAFO 69th Sniffing Brigade Jdh009 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter profiles aren't a reliable source in the context of how Wikipedia uses the term; and the "connections" above don't satisfy Wikipedia's constraints on verifiability, synthesis, and original research. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Kristo Enn Vaga, an Estonian MP and member of the Riigikogu's state defence commission and the Ukraine-Estonia parliamentary group raising money for those NAFO trucks?

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453090/

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7184702/

https://www.theautopian.com/a-bunch-of-nafo-anti-russian-memelords-have-given-the-ukrainian-army-a-fleet-of-real-technicals/ Jdh009 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither your first nor second link make any reference to Lift99/Help99 anywhere. Not usable. Your third is a blog that does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and explicitly mentions that it cannot vet or verify the claims. So, no.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Both those two articles mentioned NAFO, here a 3rd:

https://news.postimees.ee/8002975/estonian-mp-to-cycle-from-tallinn-to-kyiv-for-charity

And the gentleman in front of a NAFO car, linking to the website of the organisation. If alone isn't enough, are cumulative arguments gonna work?

https://x.com/kristovaga/status/1788550192351834114

https://babel.ua/en/news/106709-the-estonian-mp-came-from-tallinn-to-kyiv-by-bicycle-that-s-how-he-collected-money-to-help-the-armed-forces-of-ukraine

His current donation run page:

https://www.help99.co/patches/ride-for-the-victory Jdh009 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Both those two articles mentioned NAFO (offhandedly), but do not mention the organization you're trying to link to NAFO. Neither does your Postimees.ee link nor your Babel.ua link; further your twitter source is considered generally unreliable by consensus. Cumulative arguments don't work either -- claims need to be *directly* attributed to a verifiable, reliable source, without resorting to synthesis or combining of sources to reach a conclusion not directly stated. It's clear that you need to review and make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's content policies before making further suggestions. Literally none of the links you've provided thus far are useable as a source for what you're claiming. This is, unfortunately, the inherent problem with covering a decentralized organization with no formalized membership or leadership criteria -- very little of it can actually be verified or sourced in accordance with our standards. For instance, you'd need a source that cites the "69th Sniffing Brigade" as being officially a part of NAFO -- I can tell you right now that it's extremely unlikely such a source will exist, because NAFO has no formal membership, which means the statement is not verifiable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.baltictimes.com/estonian_mp_arrives_in_kyiv_after_1_700_km_bike_ride_for_charity/

https://www.postimees.ee/8013071/riigikogulane-soitis-rattaga-1700-kilomeetrit-ja-joudis-kiievisse

https://www.ejl.ee/toetame-uheskoos-kristo-enn-vaga-kaivitatud-annetuskampaaniat-soda-on-vaid-rattasoidu-kaugusel/

So some of those previous linking to Help99 is not enough?

There is a link under the text: "The parliamentarian called to support the Ukrainian army by making a donation on the website." Jdh009 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"Volunteers from the “69th Sniffing Brigade” are members of the NAFO internet community, which has become a true internet phenomenon in modern history. Part of the organization is based in Estonia, the other – in Ukraine, on the basis of the Kyiv startup Hub “99.”

Since its inception, volunteers have raised a total of €5.3 million. Cars are searched and bought all over Europe, after which they are given a technical inspection and painted in camouflage."

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/nafo-members-hand-over-16-vehicles-and-180-drones-to-ukrainian-defense-forces/ Jdh009 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And what constitutes membership in the "69th Sniffing Brigade"? How does one "prove" it? How does one prove NAFO membership in general? That's the verifiability problem. With regard to the sources: the BalticTimes source doesn't connect Help99 to NAFO (it does not mention NAFO at all, actually). The postimees link is a reprint of the same thing, with the same issue. Only the EJL source mentions both, but it is essentially a press release by an advocacy group with none of the traditional indicia of reliability. So at best, what we've got is one random politician doing a fundraising event with another organization that according to a single questionable promotional source, has some kind of ambiguous "cooperation" with NAFO (but no details or explanation on what that cooperation is, who constitutes "NAFO", or any other information that would allow a reader to assess the credibility of the claim). Wikipedia is not a promotional platform; it still wouldn't belong here. Either NAFO's involvement with this promotion was significant enough to generate sufficient coverage from reliable sources to merit inclusion, or it wasn't, and we shouldn't be giving it undue weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.wired.com/story/nafo-ukraine-russia-war/ Jdh009 (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems out of scope and off topic here. It might be more relevant to mention at Kristo Enn Vaga. –jacobolus (t) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be marked as Information warfare

This movement is an information warfare anf propaganda sharing body everyone with military knowledge understands that and they have been caught distributing fakes many times including in this very site and throughout this article this fact is occasionally allude to

Wikipedia If you have a true desire to report the truth then you must call black black and NOT white! 2A02:587:E838:13BB:A864:BDCC:74FF:8601 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to "reliable sources" discussing this claim? (Russian state media doesn't count as a reliable source.) –jacobolus (t) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The group already is marked as "information warfare" in the lead. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be remarkably confused as to what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. It is not our responsibility to adjudicate what is or is not information warfare, or propaganda. Nor is it your responsibility. That's for reliable sources to decide. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)