This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
North Atlantic Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of NATO was copied or moved into North Atlantic Treaty with this edit on 15:35, 25 June 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The terms Atlantic Pact and North Atlantic Pact were in common use before NATO was formed. The Western European Union predated NATO and numerous declassified documents in the National Archives, London, use these terms freely, in the context of WEU military planning. One such example is DEFE 11/279 Clandestine Organisations, which documents WEU efforts to set up clandestine resistance and sabotage organizations in Eastern and Western European countries behind Soviet front lines in the event of a Russian attack and advance to the Rhine. Some rewriting of the main article needs to take account of this other use of the term Atlantic Pact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Hutchinson ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You identified my User talk:69.171.101.124 submission to the North Atlantic Treaty wiki as having been plagiarized. That is a very serious charge, and I wish you would withdraw it. Your User talk:92.64.31.85 exact words were "However, I reverted your edits there because I noticed you copied a piece from http://usild.org/Afghanistan-War.html word for word."
In fact I copied--some of my contribution--verbatim from the NATO wiki article.
As you may realise, wiki allows us free duplication; it even encourages the practice. It is to the authors of the NATO article that you must address yourself. I wish you luck, because you would likely need to identify yourself beyond an IP address. I am unsure you will do so as your IP address looks professional, and you might reveal yourself as a paid and trained sock puppet--which is never good for promotion within the organisation.
My other contributions are valid and you censor them at your risk.
I plan to undo your unfortunate drive-by diminution at North Atlantic Treaty. You may wish to remove the usild.org material, but please only do so to the material that was actually taken from usild.org *after* you have successfully removed the NATO article material. Alternately, you may wish to paraphrase the usild.org source material on North Atlantic Treaty once you have identified it and only it.
I plan also to move this discussion to the North Atlantic Treaty talk page Talk:North Atlantic Treaty. Please feel free to apologise to me there.
69.171.101.124 ( talk) 11:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
69.171.101.124 ( talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In the content section, there is an excess of detail relating to the history of usage of the articles of the treaty. The information appears, to me, to be unrelated to the actual content of the treaty and could also be construed as detailing a conflict unrelated to the article for political purposes. I believe the article needs to be edited significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.151.3 ( talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
where are articles 2 and 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 ( talk) 12:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on North Atlantic Treaty. 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) 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
We nbut we are dying and suffering at the hands off your vets.n eed your help here. No affence 😘 please help us . now before more dye. Lisa bunch 2600:387:F:4B32:0:0:0:8 ( talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the Cuban Missile Crisis from the table because it wasn't invoked then, but there does seem to be interesting literature about why it wasn't invoked, which may be useful to add: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=eilr, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152053 // Lollipoplollipoplollipop:: talk 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
When in reference to a specific article of the treaty, is it considered a proper noun? E.g., should one say "but by Article 5, allied members must" or should one say "but by article 5, allied members must"? Currently, the capitalization is inconsistent throughout the article. Fephisto ( talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Article 5 section is already disproportionately long enough and could actually be greatly expanded, albeit in its own article. Actually, people may know more about "Article 5" than they do about the "North Atlantic Treaty". Proposed title would be Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Polmas ( talk) 04:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
There's been a spike of activity on this page because of the recent news, thus why I put the notice on the Article 4 section. So far, there has been no official call for Article 4 by Poland due to the explosion in Poland. To quote NATO Secretary General as of yesterday:
There's been no call for an Article 4 meeting. That's based on the findings, based on the analysis and based on the results so far of the ongoing investigation.
This might or might not change, though.
Regarding Article 5, although U.S. Congressman has made comments on it [2], I haven't been able to find any sources that any member of the Polish government itself has been considering, which I would think would be the minimum criteria to include it in the Article 5 table. Those are my 2 cents, if anyone else wants to chime in, or if something has changed. Fephisto ( talk) 14:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
North Atlantic Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of NATO was copied or moved into North Atlantic Treaty with this edit on 15:35, 25 June 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The terms Atlantic Pact and North Atlantic Pact were in common use before NATO was formed. The Western European Union predated NATO and numerous declassified documents in the National Archives, London, use these terms freely, in the context of WEU military planning. One such example is DEFE 11/279 Clandestine Organisations, which documents WEU efforts to set up clandestine resistance and sabotage organizations in Eastern and Western European countries behind Soviet front lines in the event of a Russian attack and advance to the Rhine. Some rewriting of the main article needs to take account of this other use of the term Atlantic Pact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Hutchinson ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. You identified my User talk:69.171.101.124 submission to the North Atlantic Treaty wiki as having been plagiarized. That is a very serious charge, and I wish you would withdraw it. Your User talk:92.64.31.85 exact words were "However, I reverted your edits there because I noticed you copied a piece from http://usild.org/Afghanistan-War.html word for word."
In fact I copied--some of my contribution--verbatim from the NATO wiki article.
As you may realise, wiki allows us free duplication; it even encourages the practice. It is to the authors of the NATO article that you must address yourself. I wish you luck, because you would likely need to identify yourself beyond an IP address. I am unsure you will do so as your IP address looks professional, and you might reveal yourself as a paid and trained sock puppet--which is never good for promotion within the organisation.
My other contributions are valid and you censor them at your risk.
I plan to undo your unfortunate drive-by diminution at North Atlantic Treaty. You may wish to remove the usild.org material, but please only do so to the material that was actually taken from usild.org *after* you have successfully removed the NATO article material. Alternately, you may wish to paraphrase the usild.org source material on North Atlantic Treaty once you have identified it and only it.
I plan also to move this discussion to the North Atlantic Treaty talk page Talk:North Atlantic Treaty. Please feel free to apologise to me there.
69.171.101.124 ( talk) 11:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
69.171.101.124 ( talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In the content section, there is an excess of detail relating to the history of usage of the articles of the treaty. The information appears, to me, to be unrelated to the actual content of the treaty and could also be construed as detailing a conflict unrelated to the article for political purposes. I believe the article needs to be edited significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.151.3 ( talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
where are articles 2 and 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 ( talk) 12:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on North Atlantic Treaty. 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) 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
We nbut we are dying and suffering at the hands off your vets.n eed your help here. No affence 😘 please help us . now before more dye. Lisa bunch 2600:387:F:4B32:0:0:0:8 ( talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the Cuban Missile Crisis from the table because it wasn't invoked then, but there does seem to be interesting literature about why it wasn't invoked, which may be useful to add: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=eilr, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152053 // Lollipoplollipoplollipop:: talk 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
When in reference to a specific article of the treaty, is it considered a proper noun? E.g., should one say "but by Article 5, allied members must" or should one say "but by article 5, allied members must"? Currently, the capitalization is inconsistent throughout the article. Fephisto ( talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Article 5 section is already disproportionately long enough and could actually be greatly expanded, albeit in its own article. Actually, people may know more about "Article 5" than they do about the "North Atlantic Treaty". Proposed title would be Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Polmas ( talk) 04:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
There's been a spike of activity on this page because of the recent news, thus why I put the notice on the Article 4 section. So far, there has been no official call for Article 4 by Poland due to the explosion in Poland. To quote NATO Secretary General as of yesterday:
There's been no call for an Article 4 meeting. That's based on the findings, based on the analysis and based on the results so far of the ongoing investigation.
This might or might not change, though.
Regarding Article 5, although U.S. Congressman has made comments on it [2], I haven't been able to find any sources that any member of the Polish government itself has been considering, which I would think would be the minimum criteria to include it in the Article 5 table. Those are my 2 cents, if anyone else wants to chime in, or if something has changed. Fephisto ( talk) 14:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
References