Talk:NATO

Nato Article omission

Regarding :

Putin asked U.S. President Joe Biden for legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward or put "weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory."

Article proceeds with a reply from Stoltenburg apparently to a different question 🤔

Should it not be President Bidens response that is published here? I understand Biden did in fact reply. Be1968 (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

introduction

Asia is missing at the country allocation 95.112.75.90 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What exactly is missing and from which section? What is the "country allocation"? - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The addition of Finland, and Sweden necessary

The addition of the countries of Finland, and Sweden are long overdue. They were admitted into NATO in mid-2022. (As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.) Oceanic84 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the article, they have not been admitted yet. The article will be updated when they are admitted and someone can cite a dependable source.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

There is a Wiki page for the NATO motto "Animus in consulendo liber" (Latin: "A mind unfettered in deliberation"), but it is not linked or referenced anywhere in the main page for NATO. I am proposing to list the motto in the right side panel, underneath "Anthem". 50.221.62.202 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I have done it. Here is the source. Fephisto (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Small Grammatical Error

I believe there may be a minor grammatical error under the "History" section. In the second last sentence of the paragraph talking about Russia's annexation of Crimea, it states "In March 2022, NATO leaders met at Brussels for an extraordinary summit which also involved Group of Seven and European Union leaders."

I'm pretty certain there's meant to be a "the" before "Group of Seven". Mindos2055 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Finland has joined it after the turkish parlament ratified it Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for it? If so, please post it here.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I appear Finland has not yet joined Nato according to the Guardian.--とんずらする豚 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After the ratification by Turkey Finnland has now the right to apply for the final admittance (e.g. on the July NATO summit). --2A02:908:C38:D3A0:326:AC30:2F1C:FB27 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda

More out of curiosity, is Bermuda apart of NATO? StevoLaker (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda is a British Overseas territory, so yes, but not as a sovereign country. ― TUNA × 18:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Map

We need a new nap that includes Finland. Znuddel (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

On my way to do it! Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit: apparently it has already been done and reverted yesterday? Not sure about the exact situation. Also, should we update the lead to add that Finland joined NATO? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe the map update was too soon yesterday..? Znuddel (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Membership number

Someone needs to update it from 30 to 31 in accordance with the accompanying membership map and the linked membership article. I’d do it myself, but the page is locked. Sodari (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland

In section Membership Finland is not included, and not highlighted dark green on any maps of this article yet Dogyuîgeghgd (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland is not a member yet, only after the instrument of accession is received by Blinken in about one hour. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but it’s only an hour from now. Finland is already listed as a member in the member list article and maps. Barring an alien attack or something there is nothing that’s going to prevent it becoming official. May as well leave the change to 31 as is. Sodari (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Nato now has 31 members with Finland,not 30. Text needs update 2A0A:A543:69A:0:9826:CFD7:8A61:46EB (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (2)

As of April 4th, Finland has become a member of NATO.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-set-join-nato-historic-shift-while-sweden-waits-2023-04-04/

https://apnews.com/article/finland-nato-hungary-turkey-membership-accession-13f879ea8e3a2458dfa22e59cea04e3f AndriyYatsykiv (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Finland is already added to the member's list as a member. If you would like to change something else, please provide more context by constructing the edit request in the form of "Change X to Y". EnormityOP (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (3)

Change photo "1024px-North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_(orthographic_projection).svg.png" to include Finland as a member CubusXD (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fix for obsolete source [163] (Finland Joining NATO)

A current source to replace obsolete source [163] in the article:

Finland officially joined NATO on 4 April 2023.^{[obsolete source]}

would be:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

> Member countries

> Last updated: 04 Apr. 2023 15:06

> ... Finland deposited its Instrument of Accession to the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 2023, becoming NATO’s 31st member country.

Please update the obsolete source. Rocketwidget (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete map

The map in the beginning of the Membership section (NATO partnerships.svg) is obsolete and should be replaced to one including Finland. Znuddel (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (4)

Under ‘enlargement’ subtitle - Change “NATO currently has two candidate countries that are in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sweden.” To “NATO currently has one candidate country in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Calcorps (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? Is Sweden not a candidate country anymore? Actualcpscm (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the Tropic of Cancer be added to the map?

If the security agreements only extend to territories north of the ToC, should that latitude be added to the global map? I thought to ask at the Map Lab. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparent technical problem with the map

The map doesn't show Finland for me when the SVG map is rendered at certain resolutions. Right now, I have this problem at 240 × 240, 480 × 480 and 1024 × 1024 pixels. I have tried it on several computers with the same result. Does anyone else experience this problem and has an idea on what the cause might be? Thanks. Schweinchen (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works when files are replaced under the same name can mean your browser may not realize a new version is available, so be sure to clear your personal web browser cache. You can also add a WP:PURGE gadget under your user preferences, and purging the page here and on the commons could fix it if you do think the issue is on Wikimedia's side. Even if it is, I wouldn't worry too much, this will always fix itself. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Try pressing "CTRL+F5" while you're on the page. Does it show up after you've done this? Fephisto (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. CTRL+F5 fixed it. Thank you. Schweinchen (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Np. Keep in mind that this trick works on a lot of other sites too, if you're supposed to see something that someone says should be on the site and you don't see it. What CTRL+F5 does is clear your browser's cache of the page and then refreshes it. Fephisto (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

About the map

On the map of NATO on this article in the infobox you can see the border of Transylvania in Romania. Why? MeManBlaze (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to which image? In this image? I don't see any border around Transylvania. I can see some maps maybe have a border around Transnistria in Moldova, although I can't find any maps with that, either. Fephisto (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I meant the map that you sent. If you zoom in on it you can see it. I see it when I zoom in about 280% on the map, on the link. I did notice it without zooming in on the article though. Like here https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/603624028237725730/1097602935850012804/image.png

Sorry for the discord link, I didn't know how else to send it with a link lol. But in this picture I zoomed in, and you can see the border. MeManBlaze (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Good eye, looks to me like that line was added earlier this month on the version that added Finland. Someone want to try adding Finland to the older version again? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, now I think I see it. It's the really REALLY faint green line? Fephisto (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, haha. Maybe it's weird that I saw that, but still, lmao. Faint white/green line. MeManBlaze (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Delusion23 fixed it. Fephisto (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Hello, I would like to suggest adding the following text to the "History" section of the article:

"On April 4th, 2023, Finland officially became the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This came after Finland's instrument of accession was deposited with the United States government at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. The Accession Protocol was signed by all NATO Allies on July 5th, 2022, and subsequently ratified by all 30 national parliaments."

This information is supported by a reliable source published on NATO's official website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

I believe this update is important for readers to know about NATO's current membership status. Thank you for your consideration.

-EdrianJade EdrianJade (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The History section does not outline a history of membership, so I think this suggestion would be out of place there. Maybe it would fit better elsewhere in the article? I'd also like to remind you of the relevant copyright policies. Generally speaking, very close paraphrasing is not allowed. The best way to avoid accidental copyright violations is to write text yourself from scratch. Thank you, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my edit request and for your attention to detail in reviewing it. I understand that the proposed addition may not fit seamlessly within the current structure of the article's "History" section.

I appreciate your reminder about copyright policies, and I will take great care to avoid any accidental violations in my future editing.

Once again, thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. EdrianJade (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request

I have created a page about NATO's global partners. It is a relatively new page, but I hope to improve it, and that others will, in the course of time.

Under NATO#Membership, all partnership levels are linked to their respective pages. My request is for "Global Partners" to be linked to its new page.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (diff); also wikilinked it in the "Partnerships with third countries" section. DanCherek (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add DIANA as a new NATO Body

In the article about NATO, it lists several NATO bodies, including the text below. As of June, 2023, there is a new NATO body called DIANA, the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic. You can find out more at the DIANA website. Can you please update the article on NATO to reflect this. Thanks! James

The organizations and agencies of NATO include: Headquarters for the NATO Support Agency will be in Capellen Luxembourg (site of the current NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency – NAMSA). The NATO Communications and Information Agency Headquarters will be in Brussels, as will the very small staff which will design the new NATO Procurement Agency. A new NATO Science and Technology Organization will be created before July 2012, consisting of Chief Scientist, a Programme Office for Collaborative S&T, and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC).[citation needed] The NATO Standardization Agency became the NATO Standardization Office (NSO) in July 2014. Jamesalanwhite (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing the purpose of NATO declared in 1952 by Hastings Lionel Ismay: "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

There is an important message missing about Hastings Lionel Ismay, who accepted the position but resigned after only six months to become the first Secretary General of NATO in 1952. During his tenure as Secretary General, Ismay is credited with being the first person to articulate the purpose of NATO as "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." This saying has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO. 67.180.19.54 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

NATO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Editor added {{GAR request}} tag on t/p last month. 2006 listing has valid cleanup banners and citation issues. Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Why was this listed for review, who performed the review, and who decided "not enough improvement"? What does "not enough improvement" even mean? What did the article need to improve? Which specific sections should we be looking at? I don't even understand the English in this section, what does "unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" mean? You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikiProject. This is terrible! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Patrickneil, this was listed for review because the article "has valid cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GA criteria: An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ... All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph.

I decided "not enough improvement", because the article still has "cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GAR instructions: After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.

The sections you should be looking at are the ones with the "cleanup banners and citation issues" i.e. Kosovo intervention, Membership, and Structure. "Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" means that the article is well-updated, which not an issue but is unusual. Are any other of my English phrases unclear?

"You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikProject. This is terrible!" This is a verifiably incorrect claim: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NATO, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 170, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, User talk:Morgoonki, User talk:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com, User talk:FutureTrillionaire, and User talk:H1nkles. I would appreciate if you would strike this unjustified accusation, Patrickneil.

You have reverted my closure of this discussion against the GAR instructions: A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect...Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page. Am I to understand that you wish to improve the article back to GAR standard? In the future, please leave a note on the relevant GA reassessment page; that would save us all a lot of bother. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that. I'll work on finding citations today, or removing the unsourced claims, but "Not enough improvement" is not a GA review.

How on earth did you pick those editors to notify? User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com has 14 edits total, from two days in 2001, none of which have anything to do with this topic. User:H1nkles and User:FutureTrillionaire have both been inactive for around four years, and again, have never edited this article. And User:Morgoonki was only active for a month, just enough to engage in a pro-Vladimir Putin edit war. And when you say "Editor added {{GAR request}} tag" again, I have to question how much you looked into this, because by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers.

Here is a list of active editors. If you want good faith here, the best I can give you is that, in this specific scenario, you weren't doing some basic due diligence with this GAR and the users involved. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 19:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The GAR script automatically notifies all previous GA reviewers (if it can find any), in addition to previous reassessers, Patrickneil. I then notified six WikiProjects, in addition to linking on the the article talk page (and tidying that up, incidentally). I don't particularly know why User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com was notified, however.

"There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that." I ... did?

"by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers" I don't see anything in there that requires the word editor to be put in scare quotes? If they want to gnome around, I don't see why they should be denigrated for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be using a GAR script then. What percent of the article did you read prior to delisting? What percent of the talk page and it's archive? Which of the five Template:Cns did you feel were the issue that put the article over the top? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I read all of the article personally Patrickneil, hence I could say "no update needed". Same could be said for the talk page (diff of my archiving), even though that is not necessary. If you look at the structure section, you will see the citations needed banner; a large percentage of this section is uncited and grounds for delisting. Is anything else unclear? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is no where near Good article status. Only 5000 words on a topic this important? There is a massive lack of deep coverage. Every source, but one, in the Works cited is cited only a single time. There is a large Further reading which doubtlessly has content that should be in the main article. There are at least 30 sources published by NATO itself instead using any of the works cited or the vast amount of scholarship on this topic no where in the article. The Military operations section is a mess, with rambling paragraphs and no clear division of weight on its respective subsections. I see numerous topics in List of NATO operations not even mentioned.

This article became good status in 2006, when standards for GAs were considerably lower and more lenient. It has since had three article reassessment requests. Any article with that much repeated concern over its quality will need a substantial reconfiguration to remain good status, and not just end up at GAR again next year. An obvious delist Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's at least something we can work on. I'll say that since 2006, the subarticles History of NATO and Enlargement of NATO have been created out of those sections when they became too sprawling. I might quibble with describing nine items in Further reading as "large", and that, yes, more citations than I would like are sourced to NATO itself. Those do tend to be uncontroversial statements, to source things more routine like "the Chair of the Military Committee is the head of the Military Committee." I'm not sure which operation from List of NATO operations needs to be added, but I'm happy to help if there is something major that's getting left out of the current sections and subsections. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Operation Display Deterrence is mentioned and I really think Resolute Support Mission and International Security Assistance Force should be separate. These last two being conflated into one section makes both of their scopes confusing, and disrupts the otherwise chronological layout of the operations.

It is not the exact size of the further reading section itself, or specifically the preponderance of NATO citations which worries me, it is simply the lack of academic scholarship used in general. (As I mentioned) the single citations from the Works cited section are particularly concerning, and representative of this article's biggest fault. The thing with uncontroversial statements is that sure, we could cite them to NATO, but wouldn't it be better to cite them to reliable independent sources? Either way, the Military operations section is really the core of the article, and what needs to be better sourced. The Gulf of Aden anti-piracy section, for instance, is solely cited to NATO, which is certainly inappropriate – Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear that. I do though want to keep this is as an overview article. I think that's always been an element here, that the scope can't go into too much detail given the 75 years of institutional history that need to fit in its sections. We do have these two reservoirs of sources, published international policy books and news articles about a NATO-related event that just happened somewhere, the trouble being that neither type of source is actually all that great at being a source for the basic questions readers come here for, like, "what is NATO?" or "why is NATO expanding?", that the article tries to give answers for.

Lastly, if I am a bit defensive, it might be somewhat that there is a literal cyberarmy out to manipulate Wikipedia, and we've been dealing with it for years on this topic. The most recent GAR request, last year, was because a user wanted to include a chunk what I see as pro-Russian propaganda. They were asked politely to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The two previous GARs were 14 years ago, all three have, I would note, resulted in speedily keeping it as a GA. I'm well aware the article needs attention, perhaps WP:PR is more what the article needs or at least a thorough section by section review, because there are large chunks that are at a high quality, but other parts that let it down. It's just difficult to see almost 20 years of maintenance here boiled down to three words, "not enough improvement." -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your defensiveness is certainly understandable. But I'm fairly certain where Airship is coming from. The GA process & community was only recently reinvigorated and prior to which although the standards had risen, older GAs had not. Thus, there is a lot of cleanup now taking place with older GAs, huge numbers of which are far below standards. See here for instance, where one author of 100+ GAs was discovered to frequently be using copyrighted material. Certainly the NATO article is nothing like the articles delisted by the now-banned user, but its importance as a topic gives it further scrutiny, since its so important to get right! Aza24 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that all the citation needed instances have been resolved. The article is a bit on the short side, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - there are plenty of links to other articles that cover sections in greater depth, like Structure of NATO and Enlargement of NATO. I could understand the argument that the main article could use a bit more material, but for such a complex topic I think it's better to keep a relatively concise article and allow readers easy access to more in-depth and narrowly focused articles. To pick a topic I'm intimately familiar with, Train was promoted to GA in 2021 and is currently at 4273 words, 27331 characters, and I'd argue it could be expanded but is still comprehensive enough and gives sufficient links to other articles that it meets the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this concept of an overview article. It's also better in my view to keep it this way because it's easier to update, change, or remove supporting articles than it is to hack through a massive parent article. So long as the citation issues have been addressed and there's solid overview information, I see no real reason to delist. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I maintain a habit of avoiding closing GARS where I have opined, but I do not see a consensus to delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.