Jump to content

Talk:Fofudja

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

The story looks very dubious and xenophobic towards the Russian community of Ukraine. the sources are totally unrelianle, like blogs. Ridiculuos. Russianname 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting up NPOV tags and disrupting in this way Wikipedia is also rediculous. Please list your specific concerns or stop spamming with NPOV and "dubious" tags. --Hillock65 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my specific concerns: no reliable sources and xenophobic air. Russianname 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. List SPECIFIC concerns, what is dubious and what is xenophobic. --Hillock65 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dzerkalo Tyzhnja", for instance, is a reputative source.--AndriyK 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This latest revert rampage is very disrupting. Not a single issue was mentioned as non-neutral. The article has reputable published sources, not every line has to be referenced. It is just common sense. --Hillock65 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, please LIST YOUR OBJECTIONS to the neutrality of the article. After asking you TWICE, I see none. Please do not spam the article with tags. The tags that you put last time have been explained, now you start the new round. This will not be tolerated. --Hillock65 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • My objections:
  • the article is full of anty-Russian and anti-Orthodox filth, so you must clear away these statements.
Please list anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox filth. I don't see any. Once again, for the fourth time, please LIST YOUR SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS. I don't see any filth. Maybe you can help out?--Hillock65 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not prove that fofudya is a meme
This term is mentioned as meme in numerous sources that I mentioned. Read the definition of a meme. If you want, I can rename it into an internet phenomenon. It is still the same thing. --Hillock65 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the FIFTH TIME, is this your only specific objection to the neutrality of the article? Is this the reason why you tagged the article as non-neutral? Please be specific in your claims. So, far, the only concrete and specific claim for the POV tag is that it does not support the meme allegation with sources? Are there any more SPECIFIC objections? I've asked you FIVE TIMES to list them! --Hillock65 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, a sentense above you ask to support claims by reference and yet you keep inserting biased and outlandish claim about mythical Ukrainian chauvinists? How about supporting that with sources?--Hillock65 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who determined that they were Ukrainian chauvinists? Is that what Russian chauvinists consider them to be? --Hillock65 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the source, not from blogs who determined. --Russianname 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source?--AndriyK 10:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source is unacceptable, plese see below. If you have concrete, specific objections please list them, so that the article can be improved. --Hillock65 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian blogs

[edit]

This word is widely used in Russian blogs as well, not only in Ukrainian. Colchicum 19:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But in Russian blogs this term usually means some initiative that is religious, radically right-wing and usually nationalistic. So there could be usage like "muslim fofudja". 217.18.135.36 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References from Russian nationalists again?

[edit]

References to this source[1] are unacceptable as per WP:SOURCE. This article is written by a Russian self-admitted nationalist Egor Kholmogorov. This is the guy affiliated with Russians skinheads and neonazis[2] and he is a reliable source on anything? Here is another of his masterpieces[3]. If you have respectable sources, present them, otherwise this nationalist garbage does not belong in encyclopedia.--Hillock65 18:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, even this is nothing compared to his first strike idea: [4]. Colchicum 09:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Nuclear preemptive strike against the US? What drug is he on? --Hillock65 12:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two offsprings of old Fofudia

[edit]

One of them (fofudija) is mentioned in section "Sources", and other - not, thus this other isn't inferior to fofudija, moreover it excels fofudija in some features. I mean http://community.livejournal.com/phophudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.68.203.242 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns About This Article

[edit]

Bearing in mind that this, is the English edition of Wikipedia, I have concerns about the validity of both your subject matter and your sources.

  • Subject Matter Whilst it may seem funny to you, and it may even seem funny to a lot of your countrymen, I do think that the article reporting this phenomenon should try to address the issue of attempting to explain how a parody or satire on antisemitism can be seen as being funny. I personally do not see anti(any nation you care to think of) as being a subject of fun, and antisemitism is probably the least funny of them all. If you want this to be an encyclopedia entry on the subject rather than a blog entry then I think you should make your article more balanced and present the other side of the coin. What, exactly, is it that Fofudja is parodying and why is parody appropriate? How does the thing being parodied respond to Fofudja and has the phenomenon spread beyond the limited world of Ukrainian Blog culture? Address these points and you might have a very interesting article. Without them all you have, as far as I can tell, is a bit of racist ranting.
  • References Again, bearing in mind that this is the English edition of Wikipedia, your sources and references are wholly insufficient.
  • 1) Goes nowhere, it is an error.
  • 2) Is in (I assume) Ukrainian.
  • 3) Is in Russian.
  • 4) Is in Russian.
  • 5) Is just a blog, (in Ukrainian) which is not a valid source.
  • 6) Is an error.
  • 7) In Belarussian.
  • 8) In Russian.
  • 9) Is a broken link.

No reasonable (English speaking) editor or reader would be able to determine for themselves that these references are what you claim they are. For all we know they could be to the Ukrainian version of the UK's National Front. I think you have a lot of work to do to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards of notability and sourcing. Please leave a TB or talkbag tag on my user page if you want to discuss this further. Cottonshirt (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am shoked that you find anything in this article racist. It is either you didn't read it attentively enough or there is something wrong with the article's message. It actually dwells on mocking antisemetes, not making antisemetism funny. I will have to look at it again. It's been a couple of years since I've written it, so your input is appreciated. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the lead, to make the message clearer. I hope it presents the message better now, however, I will appreciate the feedback. I will go over the references soon. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are an improvement and it is now clearer that Fofudja is a satirical movement aimed at several different targets in order to mock them. However, I still don't get how this constitutes an encyclopedia article on the topic. What is Ukrainophobia, how is it manifested, why is it deserving of satirical mockery and how do Ukrainophobes respond to being satirically mocked by fofudja-ists? I think most people will have a general impression of what religious intolerance involves, but what is it about the Ukraine or the specific type of intolerance seen in the Ukraine that results in a satirical movement like Fofudja where other countries that have religious intolerance - many muslim countries for example - do not have such satirical movements? In my country, for example, the religiously intolerant use satire as one of their weapons, so folks wishing to mock them cannot use satire against them because it is very difficult to satirise satire. The points I am making here should not be read as criticisms of your article, they are suggestions for turning an interesting snippet of Ukrainian culture (about which I have zero knowledge) into potentially a very interesting and informative encyclopedia article. It does, though, still require a lot of work on those references. Cottonshirt (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP policies. Sources should be in English, given high-quality English sources are available. Sources in other languages are not banned. Netrat (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious intolerance?

[edit]

Russian and Ukrainians nations are both Orthodox Christians. What kind of "religious intolerance" can be assotiated with Russian-Ukrainian tensions? This sounds absurd. Netrat (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), it might be refering to that??? Read more about it here. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian nation is multi-confessional with huge amount of non-religios people --Наталка Зубар (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fofudja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fofudja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fofudja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fofudja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fofudja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fofudja&oldid=1207256651"