Talk:NATO

RFV discussion: April–June 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

NATO

Rfv-sense

This sense was likely generated by a Russian trollbot and should probably be deleted outright? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Nah, this isn't a troll. I've seen this before from Marxist-Leninists on Twitter and Reddit. Could be a good test of the recent CFI change. Binarystep (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

so any contribution that is different or unique is automatically the work of a Russian trollbot? 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1D6:3656:BF36:FEAF 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

But is this an acronym of North American Terrorist Organization or North Atlantic Terrorist Organization?

RFV-failed I believe that there are cites out there, but we only have two. According to this, there should be something on soc.culture.jewish where this gained popularity in 1999, so if someone wants to put in a bit of effort, we may be able to resurrect this. Kiwima (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima: If you click on where it says "soc.culture.jewish" in that article, it leads you right to the referenced Usenet post: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.jewish/c/rWqDtb_tz-0/m/lCkbj753z-4J — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

All right, in that case, let's put the citations that have been found to a vote. One is permanently archived, one is usenet, which has historically been accepted, and one is a blog by a journalist. Kiwima (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain