This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sweden鈥揘ATO relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365聽days聽
![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Sweden鈥揘ATO relations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 March 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Turkey has now ratified the application, should this be updated? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Hungarian Parliament has scheduled a final accession vote for Sweden in an extraordinary session, 31 July 2023. I have added the date and reference in the article. Tdunsky ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel that there is enough in the ascension talks section to warrant standing on it's own. This article is getting rather bloated and drifting a bit from it's primary goal of conveying information on Sweden-NATO relations. Scu ba ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ratification isn't complete until the protocol is deposited. That may be tomorrow or next year. Theoretically even never. Until that happens, it's still 29 countries out of 31. 鈥 kwami ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/ 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Netot ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Sweden is joining NATO. The evidence is here below.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/europe/turkey-vote-sweden-nato-intl/index.html
AAA 004 ( talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an extraordinary issue for Hungarian Parliamentary Gazette one day after the parliament voted on Swedish ascension into NATO. If president have signed it into law, it should be published in this Gazette, however Gazette is in Hungarian and google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF. There are a lot of text there so Swedish ratification can be somewhere as well. Technically acting President can sign it into law as well, so they do not need to wait for next President inauguration.
Links to the Gazette below:
https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/d6656830451dceb108e34373d49cbf9926c8aa28/megtekintes 211.30.78.138 ( talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I checked and indeed, Swedish bill is not even signed by the Speaker. Why are they taking so long? I thought acting President can sign bills too, otherwise why there is acting President. However they seem to act like there is no president and they possibly wait until new one is inaugurated.
Link to the Swedish bill below, still not signed as of now https://www.parlament.hu/web/guest/folyamatban-levo-torvenyjavaslatok?p_p_id=hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_auth=RANE1dck&_hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8_pairAction=%2Finternet%2Fcplsql%2Fogy_irom.irom_adat%3Fp_ckl%3D42%26p_izon%3D638 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.185 ( talk) 01:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: I have removed from the ratification table the line for the singature of the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly, which you had added. Based on the explanation of the legislative process on the Hungarian on the parliament's website, the speaker is required by the constitution to sign laws passed by the parliament. There is no discretion. The president, meanwhile, can sign or veto a law sent to him by the speaker. So, both the parliament and the president have discretion over whether to pass laws, but the speaker does not. His role is purely ministerial. So, it should not qualify for the table, which lists only the major national institutions that have discretion over the advancement of the instrument of ratification. Ergo Sum 02:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hungarian Ratification is in official Gazette
https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/24a2a48d580ba5e080e1ec3c442bf9f09d3923de/megtekintes
However it should be delivered to Pentagon as well. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 49.182.164.26 ( talk) 07:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson is in Washington and White House confirms Sweden to join Nato on Thursday, so stand by... Cart (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
U.S. Department of State has published a document where it states that the protocol of accession of Sweden has entered into force today. Should we update the table accordingly? -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A subsection in this article has the title "Incentives offered to Turkey and resolution". The first line of the section is about the US Congress blocking a sale of fighter jets "because of the Swedish NATO membership issue". Is it neutral to call that an "incentive"? Latter in the text it is mentioned "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that Sweden had agreed to provide Turkey a roadmap to its full implementation of their 2022 agreement". Is it neutral to call compliance to an agreement an "incentive"? Then there is the issue of the Canadian ban on exports of arms to Turkey. It is introduced in the text as a complain by Erdogan and then it mentioned in the last line that Canada lifted the ban. This is the only argument that I can see for using the word "incentive" in the title. It is a very weak argument though because 1) the word is in plural (incentives) 2) the section presents developments in foreign relations of Turkey with US and Sweden too, which are in fact covered the most.
A better, NPOV compliant, title would be "Later developments and resolution". Nxavar ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don鈥檛 understand the use of light and dark colors (light green vs. dark green, light red vs. dark red) in the table. I think it needs to be made consistent to be based on some explicitly stated criterion.
It doesn鈥檛 seem to correspond to the majority/plurality or any particular threshold for the margin. Mpsayler ( talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It's been edited many times, but it stills reads very poorly. This is how it currently reads: "Sweden is a country in Northern Europe and is a member of the intergovernmental military alliance North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)." It has FOUR links to Wikipedia articles!
I know that we don't have to make every article in Wikipedia identical in structure and syntax, but we can use the lead sentence in Finland鈥揘ATO relations as a very simple template. Its opening sentence is currently, "Finland has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 4 April 2023." If readers want to know what NATO is, they just click the link. I think that the opening sentence of this article used to look almost exactly like the Finland page. I propose (1) making the opening sentence its own paragraph and (2) writing it, "Sweden has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 7 March 2024." Of course, we would remove that date from the final sentence of the lead section. As for how the acronym is defined, there's no rule that says that we always must write the acronym first and then provide its expansion in parentheses. Just look at several articles and you'll find different styles that work equally well.
The rest of the opening section could use more work and also has some awkward portions, but the first sentence probably is most in need of improvement right now. Thanks and cheers! Holy ( talk) 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Purposes of flags in this section is unclear: (1) Of course Sweden has diplomatic relations with all NATO countries, why yet another list? (2) The targets of these wikilinks are either article about the country X, article "Foreign relations of country X", or even more strange, Foreign relations of Sweden. What is the purpose of this section with no sources? 袙懈泻懈写懈屑 ( talk) 06:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sweden鈥揘ATO relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365聽days聽
![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Sweden鈥揘ATO relations was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 March 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Turkey has now ratified the application, should this be updated? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 22:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Hungarian Parliament has scheduled a final accession vote for Sweden in an extraordinary session, 31 July 2023. I have added the date and reference in the article. Tdunsky ( talk) 10:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel that there is enough in the ascension talks section to warrant standing on it's own. This article is getting rather bloated and drifting a bit from it's primary goal of conveying information on Sweden-NATO relations. Scu ba ( talk) 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ratification isn't complete until the protocol is deposited. That may be tomorrow or next year. Theoretically even never. Until that happens, it's still 29 countries out of 31. 鈥 kwami ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/ 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Netot ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Sweden is joining NATO. The evidence is here below.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/23/europe/turkey-vote-sweden-nato-intl/index.html
AAA 004 ( talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an extraordinary issue for Hungarian Parliamentary Gazette one day after the parliament voted on Swedish ascension into NATO. If president have signed it into law, it should be published in this Gazette, however Gazette is in Hungarian and google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF. There are a lot of text there so Swedish ratification can be somewhere as well. Technically acting President can sign it into law as well, so they do not need to wait for next President inauguration.
Links to the Gazette below:
https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/d6656830451dceb108e34373d49cbf9926c8aa28/megtekintes 211.30.78.138 ( talk) 10:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I checked and indeed, Swedish bill is not even signed by the Speaker. Why are they taking so long? I thought acting President can sign bills too, otherwise why there is acting President. However they seem to act like there is no president and they possibly wait until new one is inaugurated.
Link to the Swedish bill below, still not signed as of now https://www.parlament.hu/web/guest/folyamatban-levo-torvenyjavaslatok?p_p_id=hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_auth=RANE1dck&_hu_parlament_cms_pair_portlet_PairProxy_INSTANCE_9xd2Wc9jP4z8_pairAction=%2Finternet%2Fcplsql%2Fogy_irom.irom_adat%3Fp_ckl%3D42%26p_izon%3D638 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 211.30.77.185 ( talk) 01:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: I have removed from the ratification table the line for the singature of the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly, which you had added. Based on the explanation of the legislative process on the Hungarian on the parliament's website, the speaker is required by the constitution to sign laws passed by the parliament. There is no discretion. The president, meanwhile, can sign or veto a law sent to him by the speaker. So, both the parliament and the president have discretion over whether to pass laws, but the speaker does not. His role is purely ministerial. So, it should not qualify for the table, which lists only the major national institutions that have discretion over the advancement of the instrument of ratification. Ergo Sum 02:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hungarian Ratification is in official Gazette
https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/24a2a48d580ba5e080e1ec3c442bf9f09d3923de/megtekintes
However it should be delivered to Pentagon as well. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 49.182.164.26 ( talk) 07:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson is in Washington and White House confirms Sweden to join Nato on Thursday, so stand by... Cart (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
U.S. Department of State has published a document where it states that the protocol of accession of Sweden has entered into force today. Should we update the table accordingly? -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A subsection in this article has the title "Incentives offered to Turkey and resolution". The first line of the section is about the US Congress blocking a sale of fighter jets "because of the Swedish NATO membership issue". Is it neutral to call that an "incentive"? Latter in the text it is mentioned "NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that Sweden had agreed to provide Turkey a roadmap to its full implementation of their 2022 agreement". Is it neutral to call compliance to an agreement an "incentive"? Then there is the issue of the Canadian ban on exports of arms to Turkey. It is introduced in the text as a complain by Erdogan and then it mentioned in the last line that Canada lifted the ban. This is the only argument that I can see for using the word "incentive" in the title. It is a very weak argument though because 1) the word is in plural (incentives) 2) the section presents developments in foreign relations of Turkey with US and Sweden too, which are in fact covered the most.
A better, NPOV compliant, title would be "Later developments and resolution". Nxavar ( talk) 07:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don鈥檛 understand the use of light and dark colors (light green vs. dark green, light red vs. dark red) in the table. I think it needs to be made consistent to be based on some explicitly stated criterion.
It doesn鈥檛 seem to correspond to the majority/plurality or any particular threshold for the margin. Mpsayler ( talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It's been edited many times, but it stills reads very poorly. This is how it currently reads: "Sweden is a country in Northern Europe and is a member of the intergovernmental military alliance North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)." It has FOUR links to Wikipedia articles!
I know that we don't have to make every article in Wikipedia identical in structure and syntax, but we can use the lead sentence in Finland鈥揘ATO relations as a very simple template. Its opening sentence is currently, "Finland has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 4 April 2023." If readers want to know what NATO is, they just click the link. I think that the opening sentence of this article used to look almost exactly like the Finland page. I propose (1) making the opening sentence its own paragraph and (2) writing it, "Sweden has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 7 March 2024." Of course, we would remove that date from the final sentence of the lead section. As for how the acronym is defined, there's no rule that says that we always must write the acronym first and then provide its expansion in parentheses. Just look at several articles and you'll find different styles that work equally well.
The rest of the opening section could use more work and also has some awkward portions, but the first sentence probably is most in need of improvement right now. Thanks and cheers! Holy ( talk) 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Purposes of flags in this section is unclear: (1) Of course Sweden has diplomatic relations with all NATO countries, why yet another list? (2) The targets of these wikilinks are either article about the country X, article "Foreign relations of country X", or even more strange, Foreign relations of Sweden. What is the purpose of this section with no sources? 袙懈泻懈写懈屑 ( talk) 06:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)