Jump to content

Talk:NATO/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

"there are diverging views on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east"

I think this sentence was written without fully reading or understanding the text given as the source. Apart from the "non-information" in this quote it is not the essence of Elise Sarotte's article.

Sarotte's article is the answer to the question she puts forward at the beginning: "What, exactly, had been agreed about the future of NATO? Had the United States formally promised the Soviet Union that the alliance would not expand eastward as part of the deal?" and she has two answers:

a) "The evidence demonstrates that contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, the issue of NATO’s future in not only East Germany but also eastern Europe arose soon after the Berlin Wall opened, as early as February 1990. U.S. officials, working closely with West German leaders, hinted to Moscow during negotiations that month that the alliance might not expand, not even to the eastern half of a soon-to-be-reunited Germany." Most of her detailed analysis deals with the newly revealed and formerly secret documents that prove the promises given to Gorbatschow and Sarotte reveals also the motives behind the different moves (reunification, Bush's policies, Gorbatschow's economic problems etc.). All of this seems to be, at least to me, quite new information, based on facts, not on points of view, claryfying the question of how, by whom, why and for what purpose, the eastward expansion of NATO had been prepared, thereby intentionally ignoring Russian interests, their wish even to join NATO or a pan-European security system.

b) Sarotte's second answer is that there has never been a formal written agreement. So, in referring to Sarotte as a valuable source to the question whether there had been a promise or not, it would be misleading to simply write she states "diverging views", because doing so would mean withholding the very essence of her analysis.

Apart from the two answers ("Yes, there were purposeful and partly well-meant oral promises to Gorbatschev to get him to approve of reunification"; "No, there was no formal agreement") she presents a very interesting conclusion: Even if you cannot charge the US/EU of a broken formal promise it is understandable that the effect of what Sarotte says ("U.S. officials and their West German counterparts had expertly outmaneuvered Gorbachev") was a deep mistrust and bitterness on the Russian side, containing "the seeds of a future problem" (Baker).

If, as I hope, my analysis of Sarotte's article should be convincing, I would propose to cut out the meaningless phrase stating "diverging views" and replace by something like that: "... due to resarch into formerly secret documents, there are clear proofs of oral promises given by Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl and James Baker not to expand the NATO "one inch eastward". The sentence as it is now is not based on the subject of the text indicated in the source. Gabel1960 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

Columbia is not a NATO Global partner 85.158.139.227 (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is actually a little tricky. NATO doesn't include Colombia on its list of "Partners across the globe," but Colombia did sign an "Agreement on Security of Information" in 2013 that was described as a "partnership." This has since become political in Colombia, as the congress there rejected the president's proposed "communication alliance" with NATO last year that would be another step toward closer ties. So I'm not sure where this stands now, and whether we should limit the map/chart here to just the countries on NATO's list, or include one like Colombia that has other agreements with NATO.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Budget and comparison to other countries'military spendings

Seems like a relevant yet to be developed chapter? Kick off:

  1. Main articles:
    1. List of countries by past and projected military expenditure (current US$) and List of countries by past and projected military expenditure (constant US$)
    2. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Military_budget
    3. List of countries by military expenditure per capita

--SvenAERTS (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Should Argentina be added as a global partner?

Should Argentina be added as global partner, as it is considered a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) since 1998? --Nytsuga (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That refers to its relationship with the US, not NATO. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the "Quint" belong here?

Barjimoa (talk · contribs) added a section last month titled "NATO Quint" in the "Participating countries" section. I hadn't heard of this informal grouping, and looking a how its mentioned in the sources used, I'm not sure it belongs here. For one, its never referred as the "NATO Quint," and the informal group's relation to NATO seems to be just that they're all members. Referring to them as a "decision-making group" also seems to be inaccurate, as sources merely refer to meetings and dialogue. Then there is the issue of it being "informal", and this article otherwise deals solely with formal structures and partnerships. I think we can summarize this with a sentence in the "NATO Council" section, particularly since the same Quint information is duplicated at United States–European Union relations#NATO Quint.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is described as an unoffical and informal decision making group. If there's no place here for informal and unofficial groups, than you are right. I agree with your edit. I have introduced a redirect to the EU-US relations page. If you want a specific source using the term NATO Quint is here for example.

https://books.google.it/books?id=-HlbZgdaa94C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=NATO+Quint&source=bl&ots=V9HnRBeW13&sig=1BIk6u6-d9H0pu8YQUbIg2vdWLA&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwil3pD2mZDHAhVHHh4KHUd7AGs

When sources use only the term Quint it' because they are alredy sources focused on NATO. The problem is that the Quint is also seen as having a sort of impact on EU-US relations. This is why it was in both pages. Barjimoa (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's nothing wrong with having the same info in two places, but it probably makes more sense on a broader relations article than here.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo war

Patrickneil, please discuss on the talk page before reverting, it is at once more polite and more in keeping with WP policies. You say that you don't think WSWS is a "NPOV source". It is not enough for you to "think", you have to provide evidence. In any case, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." as you surely know. If you insist I can remove the link, there are more than enough sources in the MSM. Contrary to what you claim, Resolution 1199 is important. It does not allow the use of force by NATO. Finally, the claim made in the article, that Richard Holbrooke "handed the matter to NATO", is false. He simply did not have the authority to do that. I have nothing against Nato, I just think that inaccuracies are very detrimental to Wikipedia. Even when the intention is good. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My issue with this edit is that, besides being POV, it just doesn't belong here. The World Socialist Web Site article refers to a British agency report from 2000, and since it doesn't use the terms "controversy" or "Security Council", I'm not sure how we can use it to source the statements that NATO's Kosovo intervention "remained controversial" or that NATO "did not gain the approval of the UN Security Council". What you could say using this source is "A 2000 report from the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee found inconsistencies between the NATO mission and the UN Charter." That said, this is just a three paragraph summary of the intervention, and that kind of detail belongs more on the article NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, perhaps in the Attitudes towards the campaign section. The sentence about Holbrooke is actually not original, it is from the Kosovo War article. If you want to suggest a different verb for Richard Holbrooke, that would be fine, and though "handed over" is supported by this BBC article I don't think its actually necessary for this section to specify. Its just as accurate to say "talks broke down on 23 March" period "bombing started 24 March" period. Would that work?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I now completely agree with you. The statement that worried me the most was the claim that Richard Holbrooke "handed the matter to NATO", since it is demonstrably false. He did not have the authority to do that. Thank you for your help. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There's not much to discuss here. The "World Socialist Website" is not a reliable source. The edit is POV. That's about it. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

VM my edit was minor and it's not POV. Never mind WSWS, what I want removed is the claim that Richard Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO. This is factually false. Holbrooke, as I already pointed out, simply did not have the authority to do that. A UN resolution was needed. I just dont want to leave inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Please, understand me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If you don't care about "The World Socialist Website" then stop trying to use it as a source. And you are not just implementing a minor word change - although current version is straight from a reliable source - but adding in POV. This is pretty obvious so please don't sit there and pretend otherwise. Usually people who edit Wikipedia are literate so they read the actual changes. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed the offending source and replaced it by CNN. The rest is purely factual. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, not really, except for some strange definition of "purely factual". This source does not say that NATO "failed to get UN approval". It says that NATO said that it didn't need NATO approval. That's different, and your phrasing is POV. It's like saying "Volunteer Marek failed to pass the bar exam". Which is "purely factual", because I've never tried to take the exam. But, since I've never tried to take the exam, phrasing it that way would most definitely misrepresent the situation in an dishonest manner. The previous text accurately reflected a reliable sources, the BBC.
Also, you appear to be tip-toeing right to the 3RR rule and then waiting it out till "the clock expires" in order to continue the edit war. I'd appreciate it if you self reverted until consensus wording is hammered out here on talk. Volunteer Marek  23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that indeed was not improvement. This is not Yugoslavian government, but Miloshevich (as in previous version); passing judgement in the intro ("controversial") is also not an improvement, but an attempt to prove something, etc. So reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be honest, you very well know that Nato bombing campaign did not have UN approval, no matter the wording. You just want to hide this embarassing fact, thats all. Also, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO" is a pure lie. I see that MVBW has reverted me so that you don't violate the 3RR rule. Smart, but not very honest. Tell me honestly why you suddenly became interested in the article NATO just after I edited it and your only contribution was to revert me (as it was the case for Human rights in Venezuela and several others). It must be contagious too, since MVBW is in lockstep with you. Did you think I am so stupid that I would't notice? This is edit warring made by an organized group. Now, if you have sound arguments as to why we should keep the Holbrooke thing and keep out the fact that NATO did not have UN authorization, I am ready to listen to them. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but we do not hide anything. We have a subsection about this war on this page, and we tell about it in the introduction. Should we tell more about this in intro? This is something debatable because this page is about NATO as an organization, not about this particular military campaign by NATO.My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer your present tone but I still do not agree. This wasn't in the lead, but in the subsection about the Kosovo intervention. You don't seem to be familiar with the article. What sparked your sudden interest in it, anyway? Just the fact that I edited it? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not the fact that you edited it. I can easily answer this question, however this talk page is about improvement of the article (as banner tells). Neither this is worth discussion on user talk pages. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

<-- Againstdisinformation: "(Personal attacks then) Also, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO" is a pure lie". From the BBC source: "His decision to launch military action came after US special envoy Richard Holbrooke admitted that his peace mission to Belgrade had failed, and handed the matter over to Nato.". So write a letter to BBC.

The source you're adding [1] says nothing about "this decision has remained controversial". That's all you POV pushing. As to the "failure to get UN SC approval", that's already explained above. You're misrepresenting the sources and misrepresenting the situation.

And I don't feel like addressing your personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  03:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Holbrooke hade no authority, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO", was just an ambiguous statement from the BBC, as I am certain you are aware. I'll try to get documents from the UN. I hope this will satisfy you. As for personal attacks, there are none on my part, my questions were genuine. Againstdisinformation (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Patrickneil: Thank you for correcting this mistake, which had escaped my attention. I think it was just a typo. I hope that, now, Volunteer Marek won't object to leaving out the phrase "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO". Holbrooke's mission failed and NATO started the bombing campaign. The change would not change the substance but, the way it is written, one gets the impression that Holbrooke himself took the decision, when he had no authority to do so. Also, I am not happy with "Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown on KLA". "Serbian-led" suggests that there was a coalition. In my opinion "Yugoslav government's crackdown" is at once more neutral and more accurate. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that would be misleading. First, this is not Yugoslavia, but Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which is a different country. Secondly, that was not "crackdown on KLA", but ethnic cleansing by Miloshevich, which has been the actual reason for NATO intervention. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Source says "handed over". If you want different wording find a source. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but not on "handed over", since it is inaccurate. However, this is not essential. Since you seem determined to keep it I propose we leave it and replace "serbian-led" by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Serbian led is not inaccurate. What do the sources say?  Volunteer Marek  03:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources cited say nothing about the crack down, but UNSCR 1199 mentions "the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army". Therefore, we should adopt a similar language. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No, we should not adopt a similar language for two reasons: (a) the original UN papers, texts of decisions by courts and other similar documents are primary sources that generally should not be used if there are reliable secondary sources (books, news reports, etc.), (b) this is something only one source tells, but we should briefly summarize content of multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry VM and MVBW, but your arguments appear to me to be unsound and POVish. I have made an effort to give a version which is neutral and should be acceptable to you. If this is not the case, we should make a request for dispute resolution. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Both words of the term "Yugoslav government" are inaccurate, or at least we have more accurate options. The terms "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or "Serbia and Montenegro" are both more specific than saying "Yugoslav" when refering to country in question, but the trouble with "government" is that Serbia and Montenegro weren't united in this, as Montenegrin leader Milo Đukanović was actively opposed to Milošević's activities, which is why it's even better to specify who led the crack down. After 16 years, this should be fairly settled history where textural sources are our best option to have perspective. The CNN article is okay, but doesn't actually mention the operation. If you're not satisfied, dispute resolution is an option, but I think there looks like a consensus against these changes.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 03:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Patrick, I think you are honest and you know the subject very well, as is attested by your article Enlargement of NATO. Therefore, I will try to explain my position to you in the most candid terms. I have nothing against replacing "Yugoslavia" by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". What I am opposed to is the wording "Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown". It is an essentialization which may be good enough for the media but an encyclopedia should avoid editorializing. If I read "George W. Bush's American-led invasion of Iraq", it would make me feel just as uneasy. The second thing I don't like is the claim that Holbrooke "handed the matter over to NATO", which he had no authority to do. I first thought that describing him as a UN envoy was just a typo. After careful consideration, I now think that this was a wilful attempt to mislead people into believing that NATO's bombing campaign was mandated by the UN. I am all the more inclined to think so that Volunteer Marek just removed all reference to the fact that there was no UN approval in order to conceal the fact[unsc 1]. As for consensus, I am sorry to say that VM has no particular interest in this article, he never edited it before I did. He is just carrying out a vendetta against me because we have differences on some articles about events in Eastern Europe. He simply follows me on any page I visit and systematically reverts my edits, irrespective of their contents. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been no new comments. Therefore, if no one disagrees, I will restore a neutral formulation. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that anyone above agreed with your edits. Simply telling "last word" in discussion does not mean anything. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ The UN Security Council did not authorize the military intervention, but was justified by the need to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe according to NATO members.
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEHarsch201563–67" is not used in the content (see the help page).

I shared this thought with User:Againstdisinformation on my talk page, but I would point out that the sources for the third paragraph in the Kosovo War section could use some improvement, and that might be a place we could direct some energy. The two sources are a primary source from the 2001 NATO Handbook which needs an archive.org URL, and a CNN article from the day that the bombing campaign started in 1999. I do think that we should be able to find current textual sources with better long term perspective, and suggest the source I had added in my previous attempt to compromise, which has a chapter titled "Explaining NATO Decision to Bypass the Security Council", as a starting point. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

British style of capitalisation for an anacronym that is pronounced as a word

I'm curious as to how it was decided to use the more American style of all capitals for NATO instead of the more British Nato, given that the article is in British English. If you check UK newspapers they more or less all use Nato. See for example Guardian Style guide:

Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase.

I can see it has been mentioned on this page before, but can't find any discussion. --ℕ ℱ 21:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR, we try to use the variety of English that is native to the article's subject. So if NATO spells it "Defence Organization" that's what the article should use. "Oxford spelling" (which I'm not sure is necessarily what The Guardian defines) is the closest to their style, but even NATO isn't always consistent in spelling. You can, for example, visit NATO Defense College in Rome. My reaction here is that since NATO itself capitalizes the acronym so should we, and that's per a bunch of Wiki-policies, like WP:ACRONYMTITLE or similarly WP:COMMONTERM.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
My reaction to that is that WP:ACRONYMTITLE does not seem to consider at all the question of capitalisation styles, and WP:COMMONTERM seems to say exactly the opposite of what you imply as in "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." - in this case wouldn't British English sources show an overwhelming preference for Nato? --ℕ ℱ 00:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Funding

The article really needs a section on funding sources and budgetary outlays. I was really surprised it lacked this information. Coinmanj (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

DIY usually works best. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

NATO and War on Terrorism

I cant edit this page, but could someone add some information about NATO's response to 9/11 (Invoking Article 5, deployment of NATO AWACS to the United States Operation Eagle Assist, and ISAF and Resolute Support Mission Missions in Afghanistan) in the history section rather than just military operations? 24.192.250.124 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

non-member states with permanent mission at NATO

“Israel will be officially accredited to NATO, it will have a permanent mission at NATO headquarters as a partner.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-confirms-upgraded-nato-ties-as-turkey-said-to-end-veto/

how should the article be organized to include this news? Wikipaddn (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Promise to not station foreign troops east

There is no document or treaty with a promise to not station "foreign" trips in eastern Europe. It should not be in the article. 167.160.116.12 (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The following link is a response to the referenced article: Foreign Affairs - No such promise 167.160.116.12 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor date correction

In the Afghanistan War section, it states "The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty." The reference cited, a NATO notice, is dated 2 October 2001. I request the article be corrected with the proper date.

"NATO Update: Invocation of Article 5 confirmed – 2 October 2001". Nato.int. Retrieved 22 August 2010. http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugh70 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "4 April 1949" to {start date and age|1949|4|4} to correspond to NATO's official founding date? 108.45.29.72 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 02:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NATO. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

I suggest adding the NATO budget to the right hand info box, below is a suggestion based on my given source.

$866,971,000,000 in 2015 at 2010 prices and exchange rates [1]

Hellomynameistj (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NATO Press Release" (PDF). NATO. 4 July 2016. Retrieved 25 October 2016.
 Done.  Paine  u/c 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Portraits of political leaders

There's a bit of too and fro on including a section comprising nothing but photos of the current heads of government of NATO member countries. As NATO is primarily a military alliance, I don't see any need for the article to list who the leaders of its member countries are at present - readers can easily obtain this information elsewhere on Wikipedia if they're looking for it (eg, from List of current heads of state and government or many other article), and it doesn't help them to understand the topic the article covers. Moreover, as Lemongirl942 notes, this kind of section fails WP:NOTGALLERY as no context at all for the photos is provided for readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What's the use of template of NATO member states of represented leaders if there is no portrait galleries being present? Note that NATO is only comprised of Europe, Canada and the U.S. and does not meant all current heads of state and government not part of NATO. It should follow the example of the use of portrait galleries of leaders such the APEC and G8. Saiph121 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
APEC, the G8, etc are leader-lead economic coordination forums, whose activities have a very strong focus on preparing for the annual Leaders meeting and following up on the results of those meetings. As such, there's a degree of value in having photo galleries (though I personally feel that they're not hugely useful). While NATO does have Leader-level events, these do not dominate its activities in anything like the same way, as the bread and butter of NATO is military interactions and military operations. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I would also say that the gallery doesn't add a lot but instead increases the page loading time. Personally, I would remove the gallery for G8 as well. List of G8 leaders is much more useful that that gallery. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The gallery does not help readers understand the subject of NATO, which is the point of this article, and is actually quite distracting/overwhelming. It should not be added. TDL (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with above, the information adds nothing to the article, besides it is only one or two clicks away if people want more information.Mediatech492 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree, no galleries. Both because Wikipedia discourages them, and because it takes away from understanding the topic. Barack Obama is not a member of NATO, the United States is, which is why we do have a list of NATO members with little flags already here on the article.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Note this is also being discussed at Talk:Member_states_of_NATO#Heads_of_State_Image_Gallery. TDL (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

defense is the spelling not 'defence' 2601:98A:0:3B:9905:B91A:AC85:44D7 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This article uses British English, not American; see WP:ENGVAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Please see indent #2. J947 09:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing the one link to New Zealand is not overlinking and not removing all the other countries appears to make New Zealand stand out as an error. MilborneOne (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...), languages, nationalities (e.g. English, British, American, French, German...) and religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism...) Now do you understand? J947 09:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd class New Zealand as a "major geographic feature". Anyhow, without a master list of what the "major" geographic features are, it's really quite arbitrary, and a mostly useless guideline as such. - BilCat (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
New Zealand has the same land area as Texas, so it is hardly a minor feature. Not that size alone is the only qualifier for geographic notability. Like many things in geography it is a subjective term and has no fixed definition. However the fact that the term does not have a formal definition does not make it arbitrary or useless. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
One user deciding on their own, apparently without any discussion anywhere, that New Zealand is a major geographic feature, is arbitrary, and being subjective makes it useless. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The main problem is J947 has decided to remove all the links to New Zealand in the encyclopedia so not really a local issue to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, NZ only has the land area of Colorado. J947 20:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
New Zealand is a sovereign state with its own foreign policy, and military forces with close ties to a NATO member, the UK, while I suspect Colorado and Montana aren't and don't. IIRC New Zealand was also a SEATO member, as was the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Map and French Guyana

Hi, I notice in the archives there has been talk about whether or not to include this bit of France into the map. As per the North Atlantic Treaty, the treaty very specifically only covers North America, Europe, islands north of tropic of cancer, and until independence, the French owned Algerian provinces. Including French Guyana seems to misrepresent this point, and the NATO website (http://www.nato.int/nato-on-the-map/#) does not include this, or any other territory. Note, for example, that Puerto Rico is not green, nor are the Falklands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtooth700 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

French Guyana is a Department of France, making it an integral part of the country. As a member state all of France is included under the treaty regardless of geographic location. Likewise Hawaii is included under the treaty, though it is nowhere near North Atlantic area. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
How about Diego Garcia (US) and Réunion (FR) in the Indian Ocean ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but Hawaii is likewise not covered by the North Atlantic Treaty, it's been mentioned previously in news articles, http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/08/page/28/article/hawaii-lacks-nato-coverage-if-attacked. There is a reason why NATO was not involved in the Falklands islands war. If you are going to make the argument that all territory should be on the map, then the map is still wrong, since it lacks the following; Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion, Mayotte, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, Falklands, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos, and a dozen more. If the treaty does not cover the territory, it should not be on the map, it gives readers the wrong impression.
The United States was not involved in the Falklands war because it is an ally of both belligerents. For this same reason NATO did not involve itself in the Cyprus War in 1974. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that was a decision made by the Reagan administration, for which a great many Americans were upset, as they felt the UK was in the right.104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
In addition, as mentioned, the map on the NATO website does not include Guyana, so why should Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtooth700 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mediatech492, you are fundamentally right, French Guinea is part of NATO, but your reasoning is nonsense. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty states:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

French Guinea is not in Europe or North America, nor is it an island north of the Tropic of Cancer. So it is not covered by the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. However, the rest of the treaty does indeed apply to the whole of the France, so it is not true to say French Guiana is not part of NATO. It is part of France and thus part of NATO. The Falkland Islands are not part of the UK. Are they part of NATO? I have no idea.

The map cited on NATO's webpage cannot be considered reliable as it excludes ALL overseas areas of France and overseas territories of the UK regardless of where they are situated. Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France) and Bermuda (UK) are both north of the Tropic of Cancer, so most definitely covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, however neither are shown as such on that map.

Rob984 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You're entire argument smacks of trivial hairsplitting. The logic is simple enough. Guyana is in France; and France is in NATO; therefore Guyana is in NATO. Whether or not the NATO treaty encompasses its territory is irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs)
Yeah it is. Doesn't change what you said above being otherwise mostly wrong. I mean, why talk out your ass when you can just, I don't know, read the treaty? Article 5 applies to any country being invaded, even by another member state. Cyprus isn't part of NATO, and Greece wasn't being invaded. If Turkey did decide to invade Greece, they could indeed invoke Article 5. If it applied to the Falklands, you sure as hell bet the outnumbered Brits would have demanded assistance from the US and France. Rob984 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of NATO

I think a section of Criticism of NATO must be included in the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I second that. I came here in search of such a section, only to be disappointed. I would like to add information from this source. nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/it-time-america-quit-nato-15615 Benjamin (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What makes that a reliable source, or a notable opinion article? Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't need to reliable if it's only talking about opinion. Perhaps some more reliable sources could be found for the facts and figures it mentions, but there certainly should be a criticism section. Also, it's notable because Donald Trump linked to it, so it's more than just an insignificant minority opinion. There should be other perspectives of course; this is just a start. Benjamin (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, The National Interest is overtly biased, but it seems fairly reliable. It is a professional magazine with a long history. Benjamin (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For an opinion article to be quoted in a high level article like this, it should be a prominent article which has led to other commentary, news reports, etc or be written by a recognised expert on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there perhaps another article that would be more appropriate for this information? Benjamin (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that entire books have been written discussing NATO, they would be better sources than op-eds. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment, NATO is not an obscure topic, and there's plenty of mainstream, published commentary on the organization in research articles and widely available books. On the broader topic of this discussion, I have to come down hard against a separate "Criticism" section. I do not believe such a section here would be able to adhere to Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, particularly on holding a neutral point of view. Such a section would also quickly become an indiscriminate collection of private opinions and poorly sourced conspiracy theories. This discussion has come up previously on this talk page, and the answer now as then is that critical viewpoints can and should be integrated into the existing sections. If say, you feel that the article glosses over civilian casualties in Libya, then propose a sourced addition to the Libya intervention subsection.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I take issue with the idea that a criticism page is not neutral. Without such a page categorical criticisms have no place and that is, in fact, tacitly detrimenal to the notion of a neutral and balanced point of view. In fact, the Wikipedia pages on the UN, WTO, IMF and the World Bank, which are similar to NATO by being international treaties, all have criticism sections. BRICS, which is an alliance closely analagous to NATO has a "reception" section which might serve the purpose for this NATO page as well. 99.239.104.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin, I've just removed the material you just added given there wasn't support for it here, and it was presenting one person's opinion as a wide-ranging fact. I agree with Patrick's comments. There's been lots of commentary around NATO over the years, and the article should seek to do justice to it rather than include non-rigorously selected recent views. For instance, there were multiple major protest campaigns against (and for?) NATO throughout the Cold War and afterwards, and experts and national leaders have debated the benefits of the alliance and how it operates for generations now. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with others in that there should definitely be a "Criticism" section in this article. Even though the opposition might not be extremely broad (or present in mainstream media), NATO is a very controversial project. And I think it is hard to deny that there is plenty of evidence for this. I do think that it would be possible to display different threads or concrete occasions of criticism in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's concern for a neutral stand point. Who can make a good start? Best, --Diddimus (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly a bone of contention to the Putin regime, Red China, and dictatorships throughout the world. You'll hear the sound of crickets chirping, however, in 95% or more of the Western world's homes about any problems with it. That mostly comes from far-left liberals who get cranky. The only controversy in the press I've ever read was about who pays what share among the members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from using contentious language when discussing a topic on the Talk Page. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on Funding?

Considering the recent rampant news on how much funding of NATO comes from various countries, a section on who pays for NATO, how much they're supposed to pay, and representing it in a nice graph would be a great addition to the article. 104.219.107.83 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Currently, America politics has became incredibly hash to continued support of NATO. Here is a CNNMoney link to start from, which considering that it's a more liberal news source and it's not painting nice numbers, the alt-right show even worse reaction to the dues percentage. Either start a funding section, or go for a criticism section. This article is failing to address the current climate towards NATO. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Member states of NATO... Not clearly pointed to, to know the data is there. Main article needs to better suggest the Military expenditures are listed there. Also, recent news on relations and arguments about expenditures (this week Trump attacking Germany's percentage) shows this is of importance. If this is being addressed on another article, it needs to better be pointed out. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for that information as well and find it strange that there is not one word on financial aspect of NATO anywhere.--2A00:1028:83D4:526:BD55:1695:2120:3E80 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on NATO. 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) 13:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section (again)

I see a new "Criticism and controversy" section has been tacked onto the end of the article today. I think it is hard for editors to keep this article neutral with a section like this, since it attracts opinions from all sides, and then we get into the trouble of "false balancing" different opinions on whether NATO was right or wrong to bomb Libya, Serbia, etc. This said, the text that was added today is sourced, and I'm not even sure the section heading "Criticism and controversy" is right. It's just about the issue of funding, which was previous discussed above. My initial thought is that maybe it should move to Member states of NATO#Military expenditures, but what do other editors think?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree on this, it shouldn't be here for the reasons you stated 2600:100E:B00C:4A5E:68DF:8C5B:C778:7D72 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It is reasonable to argue that the only legitimate adjudicator on whether an action by NATO is 'right' or 'wrong' is the world community in the shape of the United Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before, but leaving out a criticism section would be leaving out significant viewpoints. Benjamin (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Simple editorial comment

In the Members Section the first paragraph has a line, toward the end, that states "Twelve of these twenty-eight are original members who joined in 1949, while the other sixteen joined in one of seven enlargement rounds." While in the first sentence the recent addition of Montenegro is acknowledged by stating there are twenty-nine members, this sentence was not updated.

Fixed it for you, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Jurryaany (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is also a line under the Enlargement Section that says "Though Macedonia completed its requirements for membership at the same time as Croatia and Albania, NATO's most recent members, its accession was blocked by Greece..." The most recent members statement is no longer accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.77.254 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NATO. 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) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Spying

NATO was thrown out of France for spying. Yet in the article a different story is told. WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:193D:3E91:C30C:53CF (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

France removed itself out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty. NATO then removed military formations out of the country, nothing as far as I can see about spying. I am not sure why spying on the Soviet Union from any of the member states has anything to do with NATO in France in particular. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Add Colombia

Next week, Colombia will be joining NATO, therefore Colombia needs to be added as a member country AndyPandy001 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication that this will be happening. Do you happen to have a source?Garuda28 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Colombia is becoming a Global Partner of NATO, not a full member. This is already in the article. – BilCat (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Costs: facts & figures

While Donald Trump makes NATO cost a central topic, this article could provide facts and figures.

Here is one possible source:

https://www.taxpayer.net/national-security/brussels-sprouts-cash/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.116 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There is another source here:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.116 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

the official NATO site is https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf Note that the US had worldwide military commitments --esp Asia—while the European countries do not. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section needed

I am sure that NATO, like any other major organisation, has some screwups. For example, the rebels in Libya that NATO backed had also committed human rights violations. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally discouraged (please see WP:NOCRIT). It's much better to weave such material into a balanced narrative. For instance, that NATO helped coordinate the campaign against Gaddafi and it was successful, but that various things went wrong. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What is SHAPE?

"This withdrawal forced the relocation of SHAPE from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by 16 October 1967." 81.104.142.198 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried putting SHAPE in the search box ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

After the Cold War section

As recently we have seen some of documents on the subject declassified I propose to edit the section.

I propose to finish second paragraph of the section with next addition:

However according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University on December 2017 it became known that Gorbachev was right. Prior to re-unification of Germany James Baker (then Secretary of State) held meetings with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Furthermore Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl (West German chancellor) who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. After recieving instructions from American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” Simmilar gaurantees were given to Gorbachev by other nato members (Margaret Thatcher during meeting with Gorbachev on June 8, 1990 and Mitterrand on May 25, 1990).

Hyperlink to full spectrum of documents: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#.WjAX9r_XxYI.twitter Hyperlink to Baker-Gorbachev discussion protocol: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4325680-Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polgorodnyk (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s relevent to add, as it is not a binding or legal promise by NATO. It doesn’t add any new information to the article ether. Garuda28 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Garuda28. The proposed additions are entirely based on one editor's interpretation of primary documents. that's dangerous terrain that wiki warns against--the editor fails to not that there was no NATO expansion (except for Germany) involving the USSR. (expansion happened after USSR disappeared) Please use reliable secondary sources instead. Rjensen (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above, that we have this topic covered. The attention already given to this fringe topic is already stretching WP:NPOV guidelines. I've said before that editors can include sourced information on this topic at the article Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, but the article on NATO is a summary of the organization, and not really the place for these conspiracies.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this section is that, if statements by Gorbachev saying that there was an informal agreement not to expand NATO are to be included, then his statement that there was no such agreement should also be included, and it should also be pointed out that there clearly was no formal agreement not to expand nor has anyone shown the opposite. Equally if George Keenan's 1997 critical views on expansion are to be included then the many, many positive views by senior politicians should also be aired, as should the endorsement of joining NATO in a number of referendums. Otherwise this page is going to read like POV Russian propaganda. Either we cover this in a balanced, NPOV way on this page, or not at all and leave it for the NATO expansion article. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving History

There have been some major changes going on with this article in the last two days, and I just wanted to give other editors a chance to opine on those. Namely, Ssolbergj moved the History section completely off this page to a separate article while simultaneously merging Structure of NATO into the article. The History section is now four sentences only about the "structure." Way back in 2010, I broke the Structure section off into its own article, since it had a lot of bulleted lists and sub-sub-sub-sections that seemed like they should be summarized on this main NATO article. I'd like to keep this article at GA status, and I worry this is a big step backwards for the article. Thoughts? I for one think that big changes like this are best done with consensus.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure the structure should be merged, given the vast scale of it, and the bulleted list and sub-sections do not appear to have been transferred over. Garuda28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Structure of Nato should be unmerged right away and I'll do that now. There are what amounts to history of NATO articles already in existence (Enlargement of NATO, The Cold War) but a separate article specifically for NATO history is probably called for as well - however there should still be a summary of NATO history here. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I just reverted to the version as of Tuesday, but am happy to continue discussing. If we want to break off History of NATO, then we need a better summary of it here.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise that I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this previously. Structure of NATO did neither differentiate between former and present structures nor between civil and military structures. Or at least this was rather unclear. And the article also didn't include the stuff in the NATO article about the North Atlantic Council, the Secretary General and the Parliamentary Assembly. I therefore boldly merged the contents of Structure of NATO into the NATO article's 'structure' section and moved the stuff about the historical structures to the new, separate History of NATO article, which IMO is justified by the fact that the history section of the NATO article takes up 50 % of the article - i.e. too much. This latest reversal by Patrick undid all the restructuring, in line with NATO's own overview, and I therefore revert it until we can discuss this further. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that this main NATO article contains all of Wikipedia's info about NATO's present structures, I propose that we redirect Structure of NATO into this article. Opinions? - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I do by the wat agree that the History section of the main NATO article needs to include a somewhat larger summary of History of NATO (although without subsections). I haven't had the time to do this yet. -Ssolbergj (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there are separate discussions that could be had here, whether the History section is too long, and whether the Structure section is too short. My answer to both is let us have a summary here with more specific sub-articles branching off. Yes, we can break off History of NATO, but no, we should not merge Structure of NATO into the main NATO article. What however I find completely unacceptable is the 4 sentence History section. NATO is one of only a thousand or so Level 3 Vital Articles to human knowledge. If any user wishes to replace the History section, I would highly suggest writting the new section in a Sandbox, posting a link here for other editors to review, and then effecting those changes to the article. Ssolbergj, its fine to have a temporary section while the article is under active construction, but I don't think we can leave it without a History section longer than a day. I really don't wish to edit war, but I'll have to put the History section back unless there's a better summary of NATO history written today.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added a summary of History of NATO. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If we're summarising history on this page and leaving the detail for the main history page (which makes sense) then we should do the same for the structure of NATO. We'll just have to guard against the mission-creep that led to steady expansion of the history section before. FOARP (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Needs old info returned J.Greeny123459 (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Northern Macedonia to NATO.

On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to the article, and where are your published reliable sources? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Largest City of NATO should be LONDON or NEW YORK ? 2405:204:28D:401F:ADC9:DA97:7C31:B3BC (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Correct as written per List of largest cities. Seems a little random and maybe a little original to include here though, so I wouldn't be opposed to removing it entirely if someone was inclined to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@BilCat: Thanks! I was actually going back and doing the same thing at the same time, I removed some extra extraneous info since it was added by a CU-blocked user a few weeks back. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

87.116.179.28 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Nato or North Antalntic terorist organization
Denied - No. Garuda28 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia map

Can some make North Macedonia green on the Map, I would do it but it is locked. Wait NVM, I'll just make ten edits and then do it myself. Homercat1234 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

North Macedonia has not yet become a member, as ratification of its accesion protocol is not yet complete. It should not be made green until it becomes a member. TDL (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah you're right, I forgot about that part. Homercat1234 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I admit I'm not 100% as to when we add North Macedonia as a member here. Spain's senate passed their membership this morning, and Jens Stotenberg just tweeted "all Allies have welcomed our soon-to-be 30th member". It should be when they "deposit the agreement with the U.S. state department" but I seem to recall there was some formal ceremony at the headquarters and a flag-raising that notable officials congregated for, and so determined the timing. But they may just skip the public celebration this time given that their HQ is on reduced staffing after an employee tested positive for COVID-19. If we want an online RS, we can just wait till Macedonia are listed here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm. Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"North Macedonia Joins the NATO Alliance" press release on US Department of State site (https://www.state.gov/north-macedonia-joins-the-nato-alliance/) Risto est (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Also: North Macedonia joins NATO as 30th Ally (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_174589.htm?selectedLocale=en) Risto est (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

Basic information missing from this article (in a clear, structured, readable form: 1. Current membership and year of accession. 2. Proposed members or requests for future membership 3. Procedure for accession to membership. 4. Arguments for/against enlargement both within and outside of the union. Abelian (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


I started it and it was removed in this edit on the grounds of being POV. I think the article, without a criticism section, is POV. A criticism section brings balance, as there has been criticism of NATO for decades. So, NATO#Enlargement already contains criticism of NATO. I suggest that the criticism section is restored, and content from NATO#Enlargement be added to it. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Two other major organizations:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If we are including Trump’s criticism, then we must also include an explanation that his criticism makes no sense, and merely shows that he does not understand NATO funding, or the pledge his criticism was based upon. See, e.g., 1, 2, 3. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laszlo Panaflex. Excellent (and funny) point. So, what about a criticism section sans Trump content? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I would not object to a discussion of criticism per se, but out of context quotes by Paul and Chomsky (from sources like RT) are hardly appropriate when there is extensive academic work on the topic. An in-depth analysis might be beneficial; a drive-by list of quotes would not. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Not historically relevant. Zero point in adding info that will have zero lasting affect. --Moxy 🍁 14:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Criticism sections are also highly discouraged via WP:CRITICISM, and in my opinion have no place in an article if they can be integrated in the main body instead. Any relevant criticism should be integrated into the body of the article. Garuda28 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of this section, so I feel I should defend that act. It's an issue is of neutrality, and I feel strongly that a "just the facts" encyclopedic approach is the best way to get there. Sentences like "NATO did this" are easier to keep neutral than sentences like "so-and-so politician thinks/said this about NATO." And I reject that this approach is somehow "pro-NATO." Like Garuda28 said above, relevent opinions could and should be integrated into the History, Military operations, or Enlargement sections. As Anna said above, we do include some there already, which is good, and I can see in our future the History section including a sentence like "Donald Trump said this and then NATO responded and did that" with sourced facts and statisics. I said this in the 2016 discussion, but I still I feel that having a separate section titled "Criticism" would inevitably invite an indiscriminate collection of private opinions of questionable notability (what Jimbo Wales called a "troll magnet"), all of which is explicitly what Wikipedia is not.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I trust the community. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling the repeated criticism by the president of the United States an invitation to " invite an indiscriminate collection of private opinions of questionable notability " is nonsense. Wait until dubious additions are proposed before deleting the most important public attack on NATO by a top leader in its history. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Rjensen: RfC? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean, the watchers/editors of this page do not seem to want a criticism section, evidenced by the fact that there isn't one, but maybe outside eyes would have another viewpoint and be a good thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I posted here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Whether or not an RfC for NATO is needed, so that non-NATO-editing people can weigh in. I'm sorry if I'm being disruptive. I just wonder if that criticism section was a shock to the system, that the main editors of the article have just gotten used to it being without it. I won't make any further effort. It's up to others from here on in. Best wishes to all. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, nobody said criticism by the president is such an invitation. What was claimed was that having a section entitled "Criticism" is such an invitation. And I don't see how anyone can dispute that. You're reading along, and there's a section entitled just "Criticism" - not criticism of any particular aspect of the topic -- just criticism. You aren't going to feel like that's a good place to pile any criticisms you might know about? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't find that WP:CRITICISM highly discourages criticism sections. It weakly discourages them, and gives good reasons and alternatives, which says to me it's open to debate in individual cases. Do the reasons apply in this case? Are the alternatives really better there?. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

French title should be bolded

French and English are the official languages of NATO. While this is the English Wikipedia, it is a proper name and should be treated like Academie Francais or Medecins Sans Frontieres. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I guess I'm just never sure about formatting in that parentheses after the name, its italicized now, should it be bold and italics, or just bold? Where does the IPA pronunciation fit then?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Overseas collectives/departments/territories/etc. coloured as part of NATO?

There doesn't seem to be any consistency on the map about how overseas territories should be coloured. For example French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique are blue, but Saint Pierre and Miquelon are grey. None of these are separate countries, they are part of France. The same issue with Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, and I'm sure the US. There are a lot of them: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EU_OCT_and_OMR_map_en.png

I see two questions that need to be answered:

  • Are these territories part of a NATO member nation?
  • Would colouring them in appropriately make the map a confusing mess?

Wikkiwonkk (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Include the flag icons of key officeholders, e.g., Norway for Secretary-General Stoltenberg, the United States for General Waters and France for General Lanata. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: From WP:MOSFLAG, Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

located in Haren?

Haren is not a municipality, it isn't worthy to mention the name of the town. Please say it is located in Brussels instead. Tomaatje12 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Change The building of the Berlin Wall in 1962 in The building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 2001:16B8:2C10:6400:A4B4:6593:3DD7:7644 (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

This might be added in the intro:

NATO's primary objective is to defend its members from communist aggression, that became quite pronounced during the Cold War.

Ref: https://www.thebalance.com/nato-purpose-history-members-and-alliances-3306116 157.40.210.252 (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: thebalance.com isn't really a top tier source for military and international treaty matters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


Will these suffice? [2] [3]
Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rewording the above, please add the following to the end of the intro's second paragraph:

The main purpose with the creation of NATO was to counter the threat of a possible Soviet Union invasion of Western Europe.[1] Other goals included preventing "the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration".[2]

References

  1. ^ "NATO". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-09-28. From its founding, NATO's primary purpose was to unify and strengthen the Western Allies' military response to a possible invasion of western Europe by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.
  2. ^ "A short history of NATO". NATO. Retrieved 2021-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

130.208.182.103 (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: While the sources provided for this seem solid, this is covered (albeit more verbosely) in the history section, no? Considering the importance of the lead (or intro) to Wikipedia, the prominence of this article's topic, and the fact this page has a decent archive, I would be uncomfortable performing this edit without there being a consensus for it's inclusion. Any other editor reviewing this request is completely free to complete it if they feel comfortable. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Page based on Quad

Writing a page on the Quad the alliance of Australia, India, Japan, and United States to counter China influence over the Indo-Pacific region. Doremon764 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind found page, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Doremon764 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan

I must admit to being a little hazy on these details, but the map in this article lists Afghanistan as a NATO's strategical partner. That was unquestionably true during the long NATO mission in Afghanistan, but I very much doubt that this the case today with the Taliban back in charge. Should this map be updated to say that Afghanistan was a former NATO partner? --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Belgium should be linked, since Germany also is and not everyone knows what the article is talking about or what Belgium is. 2A02:1810:363D:6700:F512:EEFB:D7AC:B07F (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking this is not needed since it is linked in the infobox already, but MOS:DL does permit linking the first instance outside of the infobox as well if desired, so  Done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Intranatoic war penalties

Penalties imposed to NATO members who fight each other. a. official (or nought article), b. comment archive of NATO officials, c. other data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4108:e200:154:ab57:9171:7b4b (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Military budget of NATO

As per this page, the defence budget of NATO is around 70% of the world's total military budget. But, as per the latest estimates present on the Wikipedia page named as List of countries by military expenditures (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures), the world's defence budget is $1,822 billion and that of NATO is $1,036 billion. It is around 56.86% of the world's defence budget. The earlier data of 70% is from the SIPRI report of 2010. 10 years have passed since then. This data should be updated by the current data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketan rana123 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Can you please replace all the HTTP links with HTTPS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a31d:a141:1c80:b9b0:5b7d:8d77:60e1 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

History: CORRECTION needed

In history section we read: "Germany...a major factor in the creation of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact." This is wrong, please correct. According to the book "Inside the Soviet Army", the author Viktor Suvorov clearly explains why that Warsaw Pact was organized 7 years after NATO. The Kremlin propaganda machine will tell you, that Warsaw pact was a Response to NATO. But 7 years late??? Imminent threat??? No. The truth is, that Stalin did not need any Warsaw pact: His armies are already all over EU, his General Rokosovski is in charge of POLAND!!! The whole ministry of Poland consisted of Soviet officials, after NKVD exterminated the entire military elite of Poland in 1940.

Another correction, again from the same book. The withdrawal of France from NATO was the result of GRU influence. The stealing of the USA nuclear secrets, the withdrawal of France from NATO, the penetration of Hitler's general staff, were the three major victories for GRU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.222.210 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Correction: Supreme Allied Commander Transformation

Should be Lavigne as of Sept 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.83 (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks!-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

Add official YouTube channel at the bottom (as for UN for instance), it's a trove of information: https://www.youtube.com/c/NATO Fortuneshiding (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Fortuneshiding (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:ELMIN. The youtube channel is already linked on NATO's website, which is already in External Links. casualdejekyll 22:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

Please correct the spelling of "The NATO Commander can issues" to "The NATO Commander can issue". This appears at the beginning of the second paragraph under the "Legal authority of NATO Commanders" section. Rthenage (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Loafiewa (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Eurasian?

Should it be included that Turkey is an Eurasian member of NATO? It says that there are 28 European countries although Turkey is geographically part of Western Asia and only marginally part of Europe. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Since it is currently the only NATO member from Asia, I personally think it should depend on context; if it is being used in a generalization of "Europe", I would include it as a part of Europe. NDfan173 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Excluding Turkey from Europe is a realatively new phenomenon. She has always been mentioned as one in official sources included official NATO sources. Klevehagfd (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably not. The separation between Europe and Asia is mostly political than geographical and, when political, it is rather debatable. Yes, most of Turkey is geographically in Asia, but its presence in Asia has nothing to do with its presence in NATO. (If the argument for the 'Eurasian' mention is purely geographic, it can be quickly refuted by reminding that Spain has territory in Africa [as well as Portugal, in a sense, as Madeira is clearly a geographically African archipelago] and that France also has the French Guyana in South America, and suddenly you have a North-and-South-American-Afro-Asian-European NATO, which I think is ridiculous.) As it stands, NATO is an alliance of North American and European countries; it has never been meant to include Asia (the name explicitly says 'North Atlantic'), which makes its mention not very relevant. In other words, yes, it is true that Turkey is in a position that enables it to lean politically to Europe or to Asia; but its presence in NATO is a result of leaning to Europe. Mentioning Asia is irrelevant here. LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:NATO/Archive_4&oldid=1085557324"