![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Columbia is not a NATO Global partner 85.158.139.227 ( talk) 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a relevant yet to be developed chapter? Kick off:
-- SvenAERTS ( talk) 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
<-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
defense is the spelling not 'defence' 2601:98A:0:3B:9905:B91A:AC85:44D7 ( talk) 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MilborneOne: Please see indent #2. J 947 09:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
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? J 947 09:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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've said it before, but leaving out a criticism section would be leaving out significant viewpoints. Benjamin ( talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs old info returned J.Greeny123459 ( talk) 11:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
87.116.179.28 ( talk) 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Nato or North Antalntic terorist organization
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)
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)
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)
Fair enough. I trust the community. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
Wikkiwonkk ( talk) 08:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
- ^ "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.- ^ "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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
Should be Lavigne as of Sept 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.83 ( talk) 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Columbia is not a NATO Global partner 85.158.139.227 ( talk) 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a relevant yet to be developed chapter? Kick off:
-- SvenAERTS ( talk) 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
<-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
defense is the spelling not 'defence' 2601:98A:0:3B:9905:B91A:AC85:44D7 ( talk) 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@ MilborneOne: Please see indent #2. J 947 09:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
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? J 947 09:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
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've said it before, but leaving out a criticism section would be leaving out significant viewpoints. Benjamin ( talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
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.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs old info returned J.Greeny123459 ( talk) 11:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
87.116.179.28 ( talk) 14:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Nato or North Antalntic terorist organization
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)
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)
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)
Fair enough. I trust the community. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
Wikkiwonkk ( talk) 08:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
- ^ "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.- ^ "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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
Should be Lavigne as of Sept 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.137.83 ( talk) 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
NATO has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)