Talk:NATO

Spelling

NATO historically uses British spelling as a standard. It is an "organization". It deals with issues of "defence". It has "internship programmes".
There have been numerous edits changing the spelling of this article, which have all been reverted. The spelling comment in the source code, which has been removed and put back several times, was intended to prevent such editing. SpNeo 02:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that changing the spelling from UK to US is an ongoing problem, just look at all the "rv; this article uses UK spellings." comments in the page's history. Magna Carta has a similar problem, only this time it is with people adding "the" before "Magna Carta". The problem there seems to have been solved by adding:

As there is no definite article in Latin, the document is usually referred to as simply "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta."

to the very top of the article. Would something similar be worth a try here? I sugest:

This Wikipedia article uses British spelling because of NATO's historical use of this style as a standard.

Just an idea - and I may be off my head on this one. Any comments? Andreww 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article uses British spelling because of NATO's historical use of this style as a standard. linking British spelling to British English and it is a great idea that i wouyld support, SqueakBox 14:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the text and a note on the subject - lets see what happens. Andreww 00:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I know there are a lot of nationalistic copyeditors on Wikipedia, but the note was excessive. Commentary meant solely for editors should not be the very first thing the average reader sees; <!--hidden comments-->, ****EMPHASIZED**** if necessary, ought to be enough. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The note was also for readers of the article. Do you realy want sombody to think that your work is incorrect just because you have followed a convention that they do not know about? You should expect to see this sort of comment in the introduction to a book that you can not edit... so why not here? Andreww 20:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Some explanation is certainly appropriate, but remember that organisation seems perfectly natural to anyone who's used to British English spelling. I think the endnote is a good way to handle it: anyone who wonders about the spelling can read the full explanation, but such a minor issue (and, despite the inordinate attention it gets around here, it's really not that big a deal) doesn't intrude into the introduction. It might be made more explicit, something like "The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation^{see note on spelling} (NATO), sometimes called. . .". —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the header we have at present is problematic. As information for a non-editing reader, it's not a sufficiently important fact to be emphasised in a header for the article, even before the definition of NATO itself. For an editor, it is normal to put editor-oriented instructions either in the Wikicode as a comment, or on the Talk page. Since we already have comments for editors in the Wikicode, and a note for the reader as an end note, I suggest we remove the "this article uses British spelling" header. — Matt Crypto 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How about sticking it visibly at ther top of this page? I agree it is not appropriate in the article, SqueakBox 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good, too, if there's a problem with people misadvertantly changing the spelling to US style. — Matt Crypto 21:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that people reading the article are thinking "Thats odd, this 'encyclopedia' I'm reading has spelling errors in it. It must be wrong. There must be many errors. I'm going to read a better encyclopedia insted.". It just happens that it's aa wiki that they are reading so some small number of these people go on and correct the error. We should seek to correct the impression that the page is wrong, not try to intercept the small number of people who will try to change the page. I don't think adding a note on the talk page will help with this, and adding a note at the top of the main page is rather like puting the limitations of a study, or defing terms, or noting odd spelling conventions in a preface but if you anybody has a better idea I'm all ears. Andreww 07:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Grrr...you seem to be saying that UK spelling is such an abnormal spelling that it needs to be loudly apologised for, otherwise the reader will think it's a mistake! Look, UK spelling and US spelling are both accepted on Wikipedia. If a reader thinks that UK spelling is a spelling mistake, and hence the encyclopedia is rubbish, then that's his ignorance, and not our problem. — Matt Crypto 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that some readers clearly feel that UK spelling is such an abnormal spelling that they do think that its a mistake. We know this because a small fraction of those readers happen to change the text. It is our problem if this is the case, we should be writing for our readers, not for our own gratification. To blame our reader for ignorance when we are writing a encyclopedia is odd to say the least. Andreww 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, if some readers feel UK spelling is an abnormal spelling, then it's their problem, full stop (period). In this article, we are educating people about NATO, not about varieties of English spelling. I'm offended by the idea that UK spelling is something that has to be explained because people might think it's a mistake. Imagine if such a header was added to a page with US spelling! By policy, every page in Wikipedia uses a single consistent spelling, normally either the UK or the US variety (there may be others, I don't know). This page does not need special attention drawn to the fact that it uses one type of spelling. The inline comments and footnote are quite sufficient. — Matt Crypto 20:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am with Matt on this one. Having the encyclopedia almost anyone can edit doesn't mean everyone automatically knows how to. We cater to that by not being harsh to the newbies when they make mistakes. There is a world of difference between catering to our readers as readers and catering to them as potential editors themselves. As soon as they press first save and then edit they themselves have crossed the line from not being simple readers any more. A true readers doesn't even press the edit button, SqueakBox 21:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not an imperialist American. However the Z spelling should be used. It is the most common spelling in reference to NATO in English. It is the preferred spelling of the OED. I feel that there is a notion that all Americans want to force their ways down everyone's throats--Therefore we use the British spellings. That will show them! There is also a feeling of superiority amongst many Commonwealth English users. (Look, I am an American who knows what the Commonwealth is! Shock! Surprise!). There are even UK wikipedia users who call the US "the colonies" and think that it's cute. In fact, it's pathetic. It is just as bad if not worse than Americans calling the whole of the UK "England" or "Britain" or saying that Canada is ruled by "the queen of England" as opposed to the queen of Canada who happens to be the same as the UK monarch and anyway she doesn't rule, she is the head of state. Europe beats the US in healthcare, social policy, foreign policy and economic policy. I grant that. However, the US beats Europe in a few ways 1)Telecommunications are cheaper and there are more options, 2)Our public restrooms are cleaner and omnipresent, 3)We provide ice witb beverages and don't snicker if you want tap water, 4)American spellings are more logical and reasonable than the traditional spellings. Honestly, centre as an English word? Neighbourhood? Please please please use the Z spelling! Long live the Commonwealth, the EU, and American spellings! EdwinHJ | Talk 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your loos are lovely. — Matt Crypto 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you first convince NATO itself to use the American spelling in its website (http://www.nato.int/) and then we'll comply also. Besides that, in truth I also generally prefer the American spellings, given how they are more "rational" --- but then again if we went by rationality we'd all be using Ido. Aris Katsaris 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The spellings like centre convey information derived from the root of the word. When you have a language derived from so many other languages this can be important and Americans miss out on some of the great diversity of English by loosing them. For example, the American spelling of paedophile implies that I love feet, when clearly I only like prepubescent feet. Etc.

ps. This is an encyclopaedia (www.britannica.com) as you can clearly see. 203.206.38.46 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies on the edit of the spelling. It wasn't until I read the discussion that I realized. I had thought perhaps it was UK spelling. I agree with any above comment that might at least suggest something to the reader about the article being written with spelling differences. Yes, it is normal for anyone in the UK, just as something the US might be different for someone the UK. I think, you could solve your problem with this particular article being edited. By including something about how, since the HQ of NATO is in Europe, the spelling is that way. Just echoing a thought. 70.237.195.39 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it and dont forget to asdd a source. The UK/US spellings are an endless source of confusion but such is the world wide web, SqueakBox 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

This is stupid. Not agreeing to participate in American aggression is not sign of crisis - it's a sign that NATO is still working.

It was a crisis in that NATO has been an effective organization since its inception because its members have seen eye to eye on important defense matters. The refusal to enact protective measures in Turkey at the onset of the invasion of Iraq was shocking to all in that the alliance was fractured over a matter that would have once seemed routine and trivial.

A single member of NATO can veto all actions by NATO by simply voting against it. In this respect it is like the failed League of Nations. This might have been well and fine during the Cold War, when the alliance banded together on security matters, but with the unaminity in question over such a trivial matter, the very relevance of NATO comes into question. It was a crisis.

---

An event in this article is a April 4 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

---

On February 10, 2003 NATO faced a serious crisis because of France and Belgium breaking the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

This is stupid. Not agreeing to participate in American aggression is not sign of crisis - it's a sign that NATO is still working. Taw 10:19 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

The real stupidity is that both France and Germany, especially their socio-political elite think that they are someone, when really their time in the sun is over. Get used to the fact that you are have-beens. --Numerousfalx 11:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very funny. Well that is the reason they didn´t go und never will go to iraq. The the sun down there is awful hot :-)

---

I think this should be moved to: North Atlantic Treaty Organization -fonzy

I disagree. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). Generally acronyms that have four or more letters are unambiguous. --mav

Then EFTA should be moved.

Is it more widely known as EFTA or the European Free Trade Association? --mav

erm, i ahev no idea, if i asked ppl in my A-levekl class they probably will habe nevere heard of either term. -fonzy

It is known as EFTA only, and nobody refers to it by the full name. So the placement is okay. -- Cordyph 10:49 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

? The article is at European Free Trade Association. --mav

I will move it then - fonzy

---

ON Rory Bremners show yesterday they gave a ranking of countries' use of the NATO veto. This is something which should be explained in the article. (BTW, the top country was the USA) -- Tarquin 13:51 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

The article says Art. V was invoked on September 12 (in the intro) and September 13 (in the timeline). I'm pretty sure it was the 12th, but I'm not bold. --Charles A. L. 23:32, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sept 12th according to http://www.nato.int/terrorism/index.htm 145.254.54.96 22:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Encyclopedia??

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, no? A degree in politics and English literacy shouldn't be a requirement to be able to read the article! I think an inclusion should be made which outlines NATO's main purposes, what it means for countries bound by it, why there are bullets named for NATO and NATO training exercises. Basically, I think there should be a section explaining in basic terms exactly what NATO does and why it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.bombo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a map

A map with NATO countries shaded would be a good addition to this article, if someone could find or make one. --Lowellian 00:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

The map is fine, but Denmark is not marked as a Nato member.--217.230.175.214 11:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I try to re-upload an updated map. But it still gives the old version? I tried to upload twice the same file and on the wikipedia the fgure is different. http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/2/23/20040402124804%21Nato_map.png is the correct one. Can anybody help?? Donar Reiskoffer 12:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted to the version above and it seems ok now. Donar Reiskoffer 14:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a question on the map I uploaded: I marked Greenland as NATO member. Is this correct or not? Greenland can be seen as a part of Denmark, which is a NATO member. On the other hand Greenland is not a part of the European Union. Donar Reiskoffer 09:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greenland is an autonomous province og Denmark and voted to exclude itself from the European Union and remain part of NATO.--68.80.223.233 13:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NATO - Where from Here?

What happens next with NATO? The Members have stated the intent to stay clear of the EU, the French and Germans want to run it, and NATO is trying to "transform" itself into what? A Northern Hemisphere Treaty Organization or NHTO of Warhammer 40,000 fame? Will NATO form its own standing force of non-national units? Probably. Will the CIS countries eventually join? Probably. Will NATO achieve universal hegomy? and become the dominant military force in the world?--Tomtom 11:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What will happen to the EU's idea, actually France and Germany and Benelux, of a EGF or European military?

Well, the ESDP, CFSP, EDA, ERRF, EU battle groups and the EUFOR are clear pointers to the future.. Personally I see NATO expansion stopping before Ukraine and Belarus, after assimilating the former Yugoslav states. And when all European NATO members have joined EU aswell (2015 or so), I see the NATO being regarded as what it has been since 1991.. A solution in search of a problem. European NATO structure will probably be assimilated into some sort of EU military integration framework, and then the U.S. and Canada will have to form the United States of Canuckia and Jesusland, I guess.

This is just speculative, though, and should not be mentioned in the article unless some defense analyst can be used as a source. --Joffeloff 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A Technical Point

It is wrong to refer to Lituania, Latvia, and Estonia as "former Warsaw Pact" members. They were consitituent republics of the former Soviet Union when the WP was operative and lacked the sovereignty presumably necessary to join such an organisation, had they desired to. What they really are is former parts of a former nation that was in the former Warsaw Pact. I suppose the counterargument to this would be that some Western countries (U.S. included) never recognised the 1940 Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, but that would be a real quibble.

Let's don't automatically revert all British spellings to U.S. They are different, but that doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong, nor that they are so impenetrable to the average American to prevent him or her from knowing what is meant and therefore must be "corrected".

Rlquall 15:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That and British spellings are more Canadian too Go Colour!!

France

I see they withdrew in 1966, but they are a current member... it might be useful to note when they rejoined. Radagast 23:59, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

France never really withdrew, but they pulled out of the unified command structure and had all U.S. troops who had been posted in France leave. (They were still bound in theory by the idea that an attack on one was an attack on all. Many said that this meant that an attack on France was an attack on NATO, but not necessarily than an attack on another NATO member would have been regarded as an attack on France.) This was DeGaulle at his best/worst. I think that they came back into the unified command structure under Chirac, fairly recently, but in some ways the damage was done. NATO HQ will never be in Paris again, and the French will not really probably be that major of an influence in NATO. This is a case of how DeGaulle's brand of French nationalism truly cut both ways and is still influential over three decades after his death, for better and for worse.

Rlquall 15:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

France left NATO because their nuclear weapons use was supposed to be ruled by NATO, and NATO has allways been under USA command. Having nuclear weapons under the command of another country is and was unnacceptable.

Quite right, NATO never was a real alliance between the US and Europe, but a US military appendix. Btw, that is why NATO is losing ground now that the cold war is over, that Europe gets organized, and also that the US has more an more an unilateral vision and thus is itself also less interested in NATO. No military pact is eternal, it just reflects a situation of the world at a given moment. Seems that France had foreseen this --Pgreenfinch 14:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add this info to the main page? I was wondering this exact thing...

NATO was not a US appendix, it was designed as a way to ensure that the US wouldn't return to its traditional isolationism, but would rather remain engaged in Europe and protect it from the Soviets. Thus the old saw about "keep the Americans in, the Russian out, and the Germans down." And the bit about nukes is a bit off, as the British have always mainted their "independent nuclear detterence" in various forms, and the US even "loaned" warheads to the German military, keeping a single US soldier posted with the warheads for mostly symbolic reasons. And yes, this is unsigned as I've not yet joined wikipedia.

I agree with the newbie. NATO was pushed by european states who wanted to ensure they got the Americans in to help balance the threat of a Soviet attack. I forget my username. :-s 203.206.38.46 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing , isn't it ...

that someone who doesn't know or recognize differences in British and American usages, or even how to spell "grammar", apparently, and either hasn't learned to or won't sign in, knows how to "fix" an article that there was essentially nothing wrong with. Ordinarly I have a very calm disposition towards newcomers, since I was one not too very long ago, but am sorely tempted to make an exception in this case. So, if you're reading this, read your way through the newcomers' guide and then post a reply, if you care to, and then please sign it so that we can discuss things.

Rlquall 19:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact

There seems to be an error in the second paragraph. We say:

This provision was intended so that if a Warsaw Pact member launched an attack against the European allies of the United States, it would be treated as if it was an attack on all member states (including the United States itself),...

While later on, in the history section we note the the Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955, that is after the formation of NATO in 1949.

May 14, 1955: Warsaw Pact treaty signed in Warsaw by the Soviet Union and its satellite states in order to counterbalance NATO. Both organisations were opposing sides in the Cold War. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated.

The second paragraph proberbly needs fixing to say something like "soviet" but I think we still need to refer to the Warsaw Pact at some point in the intro. Does anybody have an elegent way of doing this? Andreww 10:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo's copyright

Would it be possible to add a copyright notice when it comes to the use of NATO pictures?

Thank you,

I have just checked and none of the photos we are using appear to be from NATO; they are from US public sources (defense dept etc), and therefore are released into the public domain already. The flag is from CIA, etc. By pressing on the little double square underneath each photo you can go to the page of the image where each individual copyright issue is dealt with. I also got the impression from looking at th official NATO website that we could not use NATO photos without getting specific permission from NATO. There are NATO photos I would love to use (eg a picture of Javier Solana, but have assumed I cannot due to NATO copyright. Can you clarify the situation? Thanks for the note, and if you have more questions please leave them here or write to me on my talk page, --SqueakBox 15:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

East Germany

Hi, No time NOW to do it myself but 1990 the reunified Germany joined the NATO.

I'll do it myself when i've time or you do for me =)

The reunified Germany was legally still the Federal Republic. There was no "new" Germany joining in 1990. However, it should be mentioned if it is not already. --ProhibitOnions 22:32, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

On a similar point, under Member States there is the following sentence: "Germany joined as West Germany in 1955 and German reunification on October 3, 1990 extended the membership to the areas of the former German Democratic Republic which became part of the Federal Republic of Germany."

My issue is that the country has been called the Federal Republic (Bundesrepublik) of Germany since 1948, and that West Germany was only an informal name used in English speaking countries. The text suggests that FRG is the name given to the reunified country

I suggest replacing with "The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) joined in 1955. German reunification on October 3, 1990 extended Germany's membership to the areas of the former German Democratic Republic."--Timdownie 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does the picture "NATO_vs_Warsaw_(1949-1990).png" display East Germany beeing a member of the Warsaw Treaty since 1956??? As I know, it signed along with all other founding countries on May 14 1955... I only have a czech version (of the treaty text) link (http://referaty.atlas.sk/vseobecne-humanitne/dejepis/4695/varsavska-zmluva---uplne-znenie), but I am sure there must be translations on web somewhere...

As far as I know, East Germany was Communist and it would make since for it to be part of the Warsaw Pact.Dunnsworth (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia

Slovenia is listed under "Former Eastern Bloc states that joined NATO after the Cold War", while the page on the Eastern Bloc clearly states that Yugoslavia (of which Slovenia was a part of during the Cold War) was not a part of the Eastern Bloc. I fixed this, a section just for Slovenia looks kind of stupid, but perhaps it will be expanded as more countries join NATO. Everyone OK with this change? --Tapir

Someone changed this back, so I will change it again, would the person please explain his/her reasoning here? Tapir 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest introducing a new section along the lines of "former Non-Aligned Movement states". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

Italy?

Why did Italy disappear? It was a founding member of nato. Is this a bug? I swear it was here before, but now there's no mention of Italy at all.

Fixed it..

First Wikipedia contribution.

User 152.163.100.13 delted it and replaced it with 'Kimbo' whatever that means. Subsequent revisions didn't fix...

New Macedonia¤-related poll

It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:

{{macedonian naming dispute}}Template about to be deleted per TfD consensus.-Splash 02:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In particular, this article will be affected, among some others. If you happen to have an opinion for or against this proposition, please vote on it at Talk:Macedonian¤ denar/Vote. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 16:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Dry, taxonomic treatment

This article needs a major re-write, or maybe complete replacement. We don't need a taxonomy of NATO and its sub-structure. A list of NATO's members (with links), its secretaries-general (with links), various dates (with links) and gosh, even flags (with links!) tells us nothing about the organization (or organisation - who cares whether it's British or US spelling??) and the underlying geo-political tectonics that have shaped it over these past decades. A thoughtful, analyical piece would be far more helpful to the novice and sophisticated alike in appreciating NATO's history and function. There is plenty of material, both academic and popular, that would provide background for an entry that delved into this fasincating topic. Unfortunately, "fascinating" is the last thing one takes from the current Wiki article on NATO. Please torpedo it!!

Russia

Didn't Russia join NATO in 2001?

--Hobojoe9127 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Russia (and the USSR before it) has hinted from time to time that it would like to join. So far, its participation has been limited to membership in NATO's partnership for peace program, along with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia. Russian full-on membership would be a step that might well destroy NATO from within, according to some. Member states such as Estonia, Latvia and Poland would very likely scuttle a serious bid for membership, and it is unlikely that any US administration (not to mention the Germans or Brits) would be enthusiastic about Russia actually joining.

Especially since NATO was originally made to protect against Soviet attack. Plus, I'm 100% sure Latvia (at least) would give a huge resounding NO!!! — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Protect". That still cracks me up. The first military bloc with first strike capability huge stockpile of nukes in a region that was essentially demilitarized... well, NATO put an end to that :|

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.140.62 (talk) 07:35, June 27, 2007

I've removed text about Russias warning to aim missiles at Ukraine. I think in the article it was presented in too biased POV. Putin and also Putin was talkin about aiming missiles at American missile interceptors if they will be there, not at Ukraine in NATO. Oleg_Str --212.111.199.30 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO map

Northern Ireland is not coloured in blue but is left blank, maybe someone could rectify this. - Johnbull 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Organisation footnote

I find it pathetic that a footnote for the organisation spelling is needed. Please, let us rempve it. Andelarion 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nato wood

Where should an article go the covers the type of wood called "nato" that is commonly used on inexpensive acoustic guitars? Bnortham 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) How would everyone feel about adding: Nato is also the name of a wood used in guitar body and neck construction. Bnortham 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout Nato? Capitalization matters. That and a disambiguation page to help folks sort out which one's which. Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Removed the following text from a position immediately under the Structure heading.

The Secretary General and SACEUR both hold "Head of State" status, so as to be able to cut through red tape and contact anyone in the world to hold the alliance together.

If this is true, it needs rewording, sourcing, and relocation to the Military Structure subheading. Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well its not true, so I guess we can simply scrap it. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Enlargement

Georgia has a IPAP (i... partnership action plan) and wants to get full MAP (membership action plan) this year...

At what point did Turkey figure in to the geographic definition of the "North Atlantic"????? Heck, why not invite Japan, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand?

Ever since North Atlantic meant North America+Europe. WilyD 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc.

No one in its right mind can think of Finland joining the NATO, since Russia would launch nuclear war immediately, otherwise its Kola peninsula would become undefendable, which would be the end of Russia, since that massive granite formation hosts the majority of its elite air force, naval and missile troops. It would be like Mexico becoming part of communist China, unthinkable to accept.

Nonetheless one of the major Finnish parties had it central in its programme. No one in its right mind? Launch nuclear war immediately? Such a strategic location to hold for Russia? Yes, it seems to me that such threats make Finland's entry into NATO all the more necessary. But that ofcourse is my personal POV. Aris Katsaris

One interesting question is about colonies: - Are NATO members required by treaty to give military help to France in case of a Guyana natives' liberation fight and participate in exterminating the aboriginal indian population? - Are NATO members required to aid britain to hold the Falkland-Malvinas in war against Argentine? - Are NATO members required by treaty to send troops to help the british army quell a native irishmen revolution meant to unite the Irish Island under a free republic? - If Cuba invaded Puerto Rico to drive off US occupiers and establish an independent native government just to humiliate America, would NATO members need to offer troops to USA to help reconquer the island?

I would not like my country Hungary do such terrible things to benefit the imperialist powers against the natural right of aboriginals to self-government. I hope NATO obligations only cover continental territories. 195.70.32.136 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your questions: the treaty stipulated that:

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.

(With the accession of Turkey, the whole of the Turkish territory is also considered to apply)

So, yeah, NATO holds no power over attacks in Guyana or in Falkland. It seems not to apply for Puerto Rico either as that one is southern of the Tropic of Cancer. It definitely applies in the United Kingdom.

As for "US occupiers" of Puerto Rico, you do know they can choose independence whenever they want, but the percentages for such are ludicrously small, don't you? The real question is whether they'll accept statehood or continuation of the status quo. Aris Katsaris 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding of wikify tag

Hi,. I just read this article and the wording of the article in some parts is impossible. Hence, i have added the wikify tag. I will wikify it myself later, I just have limited time now so I have put the tag on to remind me. Thanks. David P. A. Hunter 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Hunterd. Wikification involves adding links, bolding the subject, categorization and formatting. Some minor cleanup might be done along the way, like spelling and such. A {{cleanup}} tag would be more appropriate for your purposes. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism?

I decided to remove the following paragraphs;

Headline text krc nezinau lopai yra ir as istryniau viska :((((

and

Nu ir karocia niekas nezino kaip ten tie zydai supisti gyvena hahaha

Ill be keeping a close eye on this page but can someone get this translatted

• It's just gibberish, Vandalism, proved by the use of: ":((((", and "hahaha".--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

nato funding during cold war

anyone know the basics for nato funding during the cold war? nato website says funding currently: "the agreed cost sharing formulae which determine each member country's contributions” is called their "'ability to pay' "However the basis for the formulae applied is as much political as it is economic. The formulae applied to the Civil and Military Budgets and to the NATO Security Investment Programme were originally negotiated in the early 1950s. They have subsequently been adapted, largely proportionally, to reflect new membership and differing degrees of participation in the integrated command arrangements. Their relationship to current measurements of relative economic capacity such as GDP or purchasing power parities is consequently imprecise."

sooo its changed from 1949, but how? anyone got a source showing individual member funding during different years? thanks, writing a term paper.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation → NATO – … Rationale: This is a concept known almost entirely by its acronym, so to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), the acronym should be the page name. This is similar to NASA, CERN, SETI etc. The page was always at NATO until recently when someone moved it, and now it can't be unmoved. — SteveRwanda 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - For reasons above. — SteveRwanda 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ditto ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Idem. Sijo Ripa 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above; this conveniently skirts around the propriety of which spelling of organisation/organization should prevail. Apropos, see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, it took me a very long time to work out what the "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" was. Skinnyweed 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If Google is any indication:

• 56 million hits for "NATO", or 33 times as many as the ...
• 1.69 million for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"
• 0.54 million for "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation"

E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Partnership for Peace

• Malta was member between 1994 and 1996.
• Cyprus' membership is objected by Turkey (because of TRNC problem)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia and Montenegro are something as "candidates" (pending ICTY cooperation).

217.67.19.67 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:NATO expansion.png

Image:NATO expansion.png is slightly inaccurate. The state of Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, two years after Germany became a NATO member state.

Sweden

In NATO#Cooperation with non-member states it lists Sweden as both a socialist and capitalist country during the Cold War. Is this right or an error? - Rudykog 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweden has always been capitalist...I fixed it. Rjensen 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweden has always been neither. Sweden is not capitalistic nor is it socialistic it is "a mix", or a "third way" or "something else". By only useing 2 systems to describe the world the text will always be wrong. The best way to say it is that Sweden had and has both. FishHeadAbcd 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User Rjensen stop writing that you have made it "more precise" you have just made things "less precise". Sweden fits in both economic systems or it fits in in non of the systems. But it does NOT just fit into one, and trying to put it into just one is the same as saying that a zebra has just one colour. A zebra is not white and it is not black it is a mix of both but what you are saying is that a zebra has just one colour. And that is why I am changeing it back. The person who wrote the part about Sweden knew this and that is why Sweden is placed in 2 slots and not just one. FishHeadAbcd 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is the use of the phrase "socialist economy": - it is definitely not a "command economy" as it contains free market elements. But equally, being a system motivated by socialist ideas, it could be argued to be a "socialist economy". Therefore Sweden illustrates nicely the ambiguity of the phrase "socialist economy". I suggest all such references to "socialist economy" be replaced with a more appropriate (less ambiguous) phrase. 82.32.73.92 (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor GA reassessment

• Is there a need for the duplication of the Map of NATO countries.
• The inline external links should become footnotes.
• Could the lead be expanded to add what is NATO's use and what they did. Lincher 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article V

The article says that, "the provision was invoked for the first time in the treaty's history on 12 September 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks on the United States the day before." However, I believe that Article V was first invoked at the beginning of the Kosovo War, in 1999. Since I only have this from memory (news reports at the time), I'd like someone to verify it first. arj 08:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

peer review request

NATO

This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "NATO Summit 2006 will take place in Latvia" and "Connections to terrorism" appear out of place in the Purpose section. The later should probably be in a criticisms section for neutrality reasons. As I read it, Operation Gladio was intended for clandestine operations if NATO members became occupied. There's a big difference between that and what is stated as "right wing terrorist organisations", so I think the reason for that wording needs to be clarified. Otherwise it reads like leftist propaganda. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gladio was originally set up to counter a soviet invasion but as parliamentary investigations show, the network was extensively used (and since no invasion took place - solely used) to discredit and supress socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Gladio was (and perhaps is still) and integral part of NATO. In deed, it has been discovered (and published, see references) that NATO candidates were required to set up gladio networks before their membership would be accepted. These networks were then put under the control of the NATO leadership. Its an important aspect of NATO's purpose, so I don't think it should be under a critism section - it isn't a critism, its simply a fact. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then most of that section is more appropriate for the history sections. I only see one sentence in there related to purpose, and that is not even confirmed or denied by NATO. Nowhere in there does it actually state the purpose of suppressing socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Instead it states the purpose was to increase the power of the U.S.A.

I can somewhat understand the purpose of a Gladio in the light of an anti-communist organization, given the rampant paranoia of the cold war period. But then that section should be specifically about the purpose; not a history. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole of NATO's purpose is historical - it is to defend western Europe against the Soviet Union - and NATO has never really redefined itself since the collapse of that enemy. Also, there is no evidence that Gladio was every shut down but if we put it in the history section it implies that we know it was.

The history section can just cover the history of the revelations regarding Gladio, as well as the current EU activities in that regard. It does not need to infer that it was ever shut down. — RJH (talk)

I do think you've made some good points about the section not being streamlined for inclusion under purpose. Perhaps the solution is to keep a brief mention (~1 line) of Gladio in the purpose section, and move the rest to history. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me: having the "Purpose" section describe the existence of the Gladio and it's purpose--both as a clandestine organization to operate behind enemy lines and as an anti-communist group that employed terrorist and subversive tactics, up to and including coup attempts. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? How about the rest of the article? Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. The only sentence that might need to be tweaked reads, "The official aim was to prevent Communist movements..." Since the program still hasn't been officially confirmed, it would read more neutral if used a word such as "alleged" or "supposed" were included.

Apart from that, the only things that come to mind are: NATO agreements on standardized armaments and shared equipment, and measures taken for multi-national cooperation on the battlefield (such as common communications, languages, radio frequencies, IFF, etc.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Funding

How does NATO get it's funding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.219.164 (talk)

I believe each country has to give a certain percent of their economy increase for the year. Someone tell me if I'm wrong ;-). DebateKid 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

icon of NATO flag

Is there a template which can be used to display an icon of the NATO flag? Thanks! Intangible 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible NATO expansion: Sweden

Why no mention of Sweden here? Its an issue in Sweden too (besides the secret agreements during the Cold War). Possible Swedish membership is also an issue in the Finnish debate. 82.181.150.151 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Added some text. Sijo Ripa 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Croatia and NATO

I have made decision to write about government campaign in Croatia about benefits of entry in NATO. Govenment has published benefits points and I want to put them on wikipedia with answer which are supported with resources. Because user:Sijo Ripa think that this is not for Wikipedia I want to hear your answers. For now this page is possible to find on my user page. Rjecina 7:20, 25 February 2007 (FED)

I want to emphasize that I think that the current draft version is not Wikipedia content as it appears to be POV forking (see: WP:POV, WP:POVFORK) and most likely violates WP:OR as the rebuttal of the government's arguments seems to be original research. The Serbo-Croatian language sources could also endanger WP:V. For the interested reader, Rjecina's version can be found at: User:Rjecina/NATO propaganda. Nevertheless, I need to say that I really appreciate your (Rjecina's) effort that you (he ) wants to discuss this before the creation of the particular subpage occurs. Sijo Ripa 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that I need to exchange part of text about Croatia and NATO. Points from article are from newspaper (owner of newspaper is state) and after that ministry of defence has published this article on web site of ministry. In this ministry are telling everybody that she is support this points and much much before that ministers have been speaking about need start propaganda campaign for change of population thinking. Ministry of defence is having croatian and english version of web site but they have make decision not to translate this story on english language because it is only for local use. Rjecina 23:20, 25 February 2007

I would also like to see some list or summary of the benefits and disadvantages of Nato membership. Perhaps the application of 'capture theory' or other critical analysis of the finer political mechanisms. 121.45.236.19 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why French OTAN??

As this is English Wiki I do not see why the French title OTAN should be included; and if alternative abbreviation are included the Dutch NAVO (Noord Atlantische Verdrags Organisatie) shuuld also be mentioned. Most other countries seem indeed to use NATO, regardless of national language, but Dutch does not; and there may be others. Arnoutf 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may definitely mention the Dutch version, then. DebateKid 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because NATO has two official languages (British English and French) and thus has two official organizational names (NATO and OTAN). Sijo Ripa 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason. French is an official language of the organisation while Dutch is not. Aaker (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Stance on NATO

As native Ukrainian, I endorse (Though without letter of ruling, of course, as I know that original research is not properly a form of referencing in Wikipedia) the validity and apparent truthiness on about the reasoning for the past decided means on being NATO or turning NATO unity holding the people being Ukrainian. Take meaning, that I make a severe point (I think to communicate, I italicised apparent for emphasis of literal thinking) when describing the truthiness in the statement apparent, by which I truly intend, thinking, it with others has been seemly but is not necessarily, or in actuality, true in literal thinking. The reason for this is because, having stayed with many various nationhoods, I understand that (People often know this, but are less to understand it, thinking in literal meaning.) that there are differences concerning, among things being other, the people-government relationship between various cultures and nations.

However, I turn away. I am beginning to make this post look like an amount of propaganda this may be taken for dishonesty; considering that I am depatriated, I can assure the reader that this is not my deliberate cause of action. I presently am, in singular, trying to give context to my question, which is the target in actual on keying of my post: Can anyone find or have an English in language source concerning the honesty of the Ukrainian government's reasoning, and perhaps having or finding some reliable statistics on why the Ukrainian people feel this way? I would presently present a lesser amount consisting with native documents that suit the needs of this particular dilemma, though with context excepting this. They, being native, are in Ukrainian language and Russian language, as spoken in there. Presently I am possessing none versions in English language, unless Wikipedia is not obligated in negative, as to trusting my competency to translate English language away from what language presently is two Slav languages.

==After reading your post I'm afraid I, for one, would have to say a polite 'no thank you' to your offer of translation (as a direct edit to the article, anyway) of the sources you mentioned. However, I wouldn't be adverse to assisting you on a separate 'sandbox' page, for instance, once you've finished your initial translation in order to help with syntax, grammar, etc., and then presenting it for approval for addition to the article CanadianMist 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

Should Ireland's reasons for not joining be mentioned? As far as I know, Ireland didn't join as the government of the time didn't want to ally with Great Britain. They did however offer to make a separate alliance with the US. As an alliance with the US would have rendered Ireland non-neutral, it wasn't neutrality but an alliance with Great Britain which stopped Ireland joining NATO. The current stance is more than likely just the maintenance of neutrality however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Everytime (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2007

The Republic of Ireland refused American requests to join NATO unless Northern Ireland was unified with the rest of Ireland.--Johnbull (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenia Azerbaijan

Armenia and Azerbaijan were previously listed as countries who declared NATO membership as a goal, but now they are not, did something change or was there an error? QZXA2 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Provided a reference in the text about Azerbaijan's and Armenia's positions. They both never declared membership as a goal. Sijo Ripa 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaps in "History" section

Several issues

Recently, I wrote the 2004 Istanbul Summit and it's striking that several important parts of recent NATO history aren't added yet on this page: the SFOR mission (which lasted about 9 years), the Iraq troop training, the tensions between NATO and Russia about the non-ratification of the adapted CFE treaty, the roots for the current missile crisis, the reasons why Eastern European states joined NATO (mostly fear of Russia), the fact that NATO now also focusses on for instance drug and human traficking, etc. No mention is also made of NATO support for the African Union's mission in Darfur.Sijo Ripa 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are writing jokes Sijo Ripa ? NATO is fighting drug and human traficking ? In reality they are helping drug and human traficking. You can see that very good from drug situation after fall of Talibans. About fighting human traficking NATO soldiers fight only in bed with victims of human traficking which is very good known from Kosovo and Bosnia.Rjecina 10:25, 22. May 2007 (CET)

Then you are likely aware that NATO personnel are accused of crimes involving prostitution and worse? Yes, the fall of the Taliban helped the popy farmers. What is you real point? Raggz 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My points is that NATO do not fight drug and human traficking. You want sources about prostitution ? You are having them:

• [[1]]
• [[2]]

Do you need more. There is no problem for finding sources for that. NATO soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have never go to court because they are having imunity for all crimes. Only home country can put them in prison (not Bosnia or Kosovo). Stop dreaming how good is NATO. Think more about why there have not been referendum for NATO entry in any country which has entered NATO in 21 century (and NATO protect democracy ???). Simple NATO is not popular in Europe. Rjecina 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, I do not think that NATO is good or bad, but several initiatives have indeed been made to counter illicit trafficking of weapons, drugs and people. If you find reliable material which discredits NATO in some notable way, you may of course start an article of create a controversy/criticism section in this article or the most relevant article. The Guardian is such a source and the problem seems notable. Before you start writing, try to find out whether or not NATO or NATO member states have tried to tackle the problem in some way (e.g. starting an investigation, punishing the perpetrators, etc.) Sijo Ripa 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is ease to say we will fight for democracy, against prostitution or drugs but doing that is problem. Look today Georgia where U.S.A. has helped to create democracy. In time of today Georgian democracy prime minister has been killed and opposition leader has been killed, but this is democracy because U.S.A. say that. It is time that I return to drugs and human traficking. For Kabul and drugs situation is simple. You need only to look U.N. statistics about raise of drugs production from begining of NATO occupation. Let I say this clear I understand NATO commanders which do not want to destroy drugs production because if they do that population will more hate NATO and will more ready go on side of Talibans. Similar to that is prostitution and Balcans. Soldiers need womens (boys will be boys Annan words about this problem) and "normal situation" is when they use prostitution (women or man has choosen that with free will) for they needs. Other things is when they for "needs" use sex slaves or children. You have ask me about starting an investigation, punishing the perpetrators. My answer for that is [[3]]. Who will put them in prison if even Annan support that. Tell me how many sources you need about that ? Rjecina 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1 more source. In last few years this has become must known source about soldiers from NATO countries and sex slaves in Bosnia: [[4]] , [5]. Please do not speak that this is story about U.N. because it is story about NATO soldiers in U.N. peace missionRjecina 15:20, 22 May 2007 (CET)

While poppy production indeed has expanded a lot in Afghanistan, there are still NATO iniatives against drugs smuggling. Both can happen at the same time. That does not mean that I support or oppose NATO. This is just a schizofrenic reality. The sex slave problem seems indeed important.Sijo Ripa 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NATO & the EU

I came to this page to learn abot NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.) Raggz 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina

Can we agree on something like this ?

• Afganistan:

In last years of Taliban regime there has been drop in production of drugs. After Taliban fall there has been short break-up of central goverment in which there have been raise in drug production. Now there is ulmost every year 30 - 50 % raise of production which is creating problems world wide. If NATO forces are really trying or not stop this production is very hard to say because of 2 problems. In words NATO in Afganistan is fighting against drugs but population of this country is working in drugs production for last 20 years and it is very hard to make them stop. Simple this has become fact of living. In situation where NATO soldiers are destroying drugs fields local population is becoming hostile to NATO and start more to support Talibans. It is ulmost not possibile for NATO to make war against Taliban and drugs so we have today this situation.

• Balcans

For that (sex slaves,pedophilia) I have given you enough source so there no need for me to say anything. Last problem about NATO and Balcans is Leukemia of soldiers which has been in territory where US has used "low radiation bullets". I will give you 1 source for that [6]. There is many more on internet if you put in google words Leukemia Italian soldiers Kosovo. All low radiation bullets (bombs) which has not been used in war operation has been droped to Croatian sea before planes has returned to Aviano. This is 1 of reasons why we do not like NATO !

• NATO-Russia agreement

About this we must agree that must important is timeline (words and statements are not important). Timeline is going like this: November 1999 NATO and Russia has signed adapted version of the treaty from time of SSSR. November 1999 Russia and Georgia has written deal about Russian soldiers which are in Georgia. November 1999 Russia and Moldova has written deal that at Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 this problem will be solved. 2000 Russia has ratified agreement. 2001 Until Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 not 1 NATO state has ratified agreement so he is de facto dead. Guilty for this is NATO which has not ratified agreement not Russia. 2007 Russian president Putin is declaring that this agreement is dead because NATO has not ratified and Russia can raise number of soldiers 2007 NATO countries demand of Russia to not raise number of soldiers and to take Russian soldiers home from Moldova and Georgia before they will ratified this agreement. This demand is against agreement of 1999 so again NATO is problem !

Rjecina 9:15, 23 May 2007 (CET)

Summary: List of gaps

Please add below the significant gaps that exist in this article:

• Missions: the SFOR mission, Iraqi troop training, the initiatives against illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons and people, logical support for the African Union's mission in Darfur.
• allegations of pedophilia perpetrated by NATO soldiers in the Balkans.
• NATO soldiers that suffer leukemia after missions in Balkans; controversy whether or not this is caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons.
• NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.)
• NATO-Russia tensions: past and current NATO enlargement tensions, linkage between the ratification of the adapted CFE treaty and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova and Georgia, the roots of the missile defence controversy. Sijo Ripa 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

supreme commanders?

Just wondering, why is it that every supreme commander so far seems to be from the U.S army fo Air Force? do they have a much larger comitment or somthing? or am i massivly confuesed... --Climax Void 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an agreement made when NATO was created. The US didn't want a non-US supreme commander, because the supreme commander (= military function) commands all NATO troops that are in the NATO hierarchy/structure (= all NATO members except France). This would mean for instance that a German/Belgian/Norwegian/... commander could command all US troops in case of war. As the US clearly had and have much more military power, and the involvement of the USA in Europe was a much wanted security guarantee, it wasn't really an issue. Also, in return to the agreement that the US will always provide the supreme commander, Europe will always provide the NATO secretary general (=administrative and political function). Sijo Ripa 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems a bit over the top, shouldnt it realy be selected from the country with the most seasoned Generals. As it gives the U.S a tramendas advantage if the United States can control the bulk of the militery forces, and i wouldnt feel to happy not haveing a choice about who controled my countrys fighting forces abroad on NATO duty --Climax Void 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe also got - besides the NATO secretary general - the deputy supreme commander. In reality the supreme commander seldom assumes direct command. Also note that the military is subject to joint political decisions - every NATO member has a veto right. Sijo Ripa 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoting liberty?

The last sentance of the second para of the introduction states that NATO's member states agree to ..."promote liberty around the world". Is this really the case - I thought that NATO was a defensive alliance and member countries were free to opt out out other activites conducted by NATO if they didn't agree with the majority decision to approve these activities. --Nick Dowling 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

you say certain things which ppl like to hear, it doesn't mean you will ACTUALLY DO IT! :) Akinkhoo 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Swedish poll

The article currently says "A 2006 poll showed that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% are against, 22% are in favor, ±5% error margin)." I think it goes without saying that 46% is not, in fact, a "majority". — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you define majority. The remaining group are undecided, and if this were a poll, those against would definitely be in the majority if counted as a plurality (which it seems is the common definition of majority outside the US), as an undecided vote is essentially a non-vote (and not in the majority either). Not sure where the ±5% error margin comes from, though. I can't seem to find it in the referenced citation. Maybe the editor extrapolated it from the sample size of 3000 people, but that would be OR. It would be better to change it to indicate how many were polled, unless the source of the ±5% error margin statement can be found. Oh, and it seems the poll was actually conducted in 2005. --Pekaje 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is the remaining part of that sample? Is it undecided? Polls aren't very useful when you have 32% of the sample unreported. JRWalko 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The source sets the remainder as undecided. This should probably also be mentioned in the article, so it is explicitly stated. I propose changing the sentence to "A 2005 poll indicates that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% against, 32% undecided, 22% for).". People interested in evaluating the uncertainty can look at the sample size in the cited reference. I think it's still safe to say that the majority are against, since undecided votes cannot be "for" by default. Does anyone object to this change? --Pekaje 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Undecideds can't be "against" by default either. Undecideds are exactly that: undecided. People who currently don't support either side of the debate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you count it. In case of a referendum, the undecided would either vote blank, choose a side, or simply not vote. Neither choice is likely to move the result significantly. It is a completely unreasonable statistical assumption that over 90% of the undecided votes would go to the support side of the poll, when the 2/3 of the population that have made up their minds are more than 2:1 against. --Pekaje 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR to assume anything. Just rephrase it. Something like: "A 2005 poll indicated that more people were opposed to NATO membership than there were supporters (46% against, 22% for). Also note that the source does not say that 32% are undecided. People could possibly have also answered "I don't know what this question is about" (which is not the same as "No opinion" or "Neutral"), overlooked the question, made an invalid answer (e.g. colored more than one answer, have written a comment, etc.). So, it would be equally OR to say that these 32% are "undecided". Sijo Ripa 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the source specifically states that the remainder are undecided. Whether it be true or not is immaterial, when what we can verify with a citation specifically states this. So from that perspective, you're the one making an assumption. That being said, I have no particular objection to the formulation as it stands now. --Pekaje 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have overlooked it. Thank you for pointing that out. Sijo Ripa 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :)

These things happen :-). But as I said, it's fine the way it is. No potential for confusion because of different language usage, and the point is still clear. --Pekaje 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Z is NOT dead

They changed the s to a z! I never thought that we would make this edit![7] Reginmund 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods, what a mess. If you work your way through the shortcuts menu on the left of that page, you find they spell some of their pages with a Z, some with an S, and some just abbreviated... -- Arwel (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably by different editors (how unorganis/zed). I guess it would be a good idea to stick with the big flashy spelling at the top of the page. Reginmund 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I shouldn't have made that edit. According to the "What is NATO" tab on the left (which looks more professionally designed), they use the s spelling. I'm still kicking myself as to whether or not I should revert my own edit. I'm confused. Reginmund 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ about the -s- no longer seems to exist on the web page. That they removed said question may be a telling point, and it may just be a matter of time before the rest of the site is updated. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, a spelling win for the USA....lol, I take 'em where I can get 'em, ;) Travis Cleveland (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

npov

Xelas211 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)i am not sure if this npov. there is no it is mostly membership applying topics

Separate NATO enlargement article?

As the membership section continues to expand, I would like to make a separate article about NATO enlargement, similar to the Enlargement of the EU, but less OR than that page. Sijo Ripa 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

NATO Officer/Enlisted rank pages

• Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Enlisted
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Air Forces Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Air Forces Enlisted
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted

Something struck me as I was reading through these - the titles are surely incorrect? Armies, Air Forces, and Navies are surely being used possessively, and as such need a terminal apostrophe. (eg. Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies' Officers instead of Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers). I take it that there is no reason that that the apostrophe is omitted except through error?

Xdamr^talk 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

I have found a few news reports:

[8]

[9]

[10]

It looks to me like Azerbaijan wants into NATO! Read them, it's all there. And I also found these: [11] [12]

I am not saying that it is official, but it is at least worth mentioning, I don't think they would conform to NATO standards for no reason. This needs to be further looked into and be factored into the article somehow. Contralya 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation?

[13] [14] [15] [16]

I am sure there are more sources out there that also confirm. I think the article should be changed. Contralya (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Blockade

I find it quite incredible how the history of NATO can be told without ever mentioning the Berlin Blockade. Is this a case of collective amnesia? The more I dig around Wikipedia, the more I'm surprised/disappointed by the absence of consistent quality. -- Vyyjpkmi 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Where is criticism? 168.103.80.6 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Current positions

I am starting a current positions of nato heading - please do not bite as first it will be under populated/not a rounded section. Chendy (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Military v Ceremonial

NATO is a military alliance, not a ceremonial one. I reverted an edit that changed it to "ceremonial", but would welcome feedback if anyone were to disagree. --Mukk 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag vs. Logo

We have two possible images- we have the flag of NATO, as seen here, and we have a logo that NATO uses on its website, here. The question is which sould be used in the infobox. I personally believe that the flag is a better image, as the consensus seems to be on articles on organisations like this that we use the flag, rather than the logo that they put on their letter heads. Comments/opinions? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the logo as it appears on NATO website and logo file is high quality .svg file while flag is bad .jpg. --Avala (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be converted, or the file replaced. I uploaded that particular jpg as it was the smallest one I found after a quick Googling. Please be aware that the file size should be minimal, and please do not use these images on talk pages, as they are both fair use. The issue here is not about image quality, but about which image the article should use. I will search for a better version of the flag now. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the flag is used on the NATO website- see here. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Used in context, it explains that the flag is the official NATO logo- see article. There is also a higher quality image, in jpg format. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does image size need to be minimal? If it is too large then it will be dynamically resized by the wikimedia software when to the appropriate thumbnail size. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If NATO primarily existed as an alliance against Communism..

..why is Russia not in talks to join it? I'm looking for a reference in the article that would answer that simple question. This is not a forum but this is information that is vital on the subject. If the whole existence of NATO is not anymore part of a cold war, then that should be established in the article. --Leladax (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article explains, with the end of cold war, NATO was expanded to include Eastern European countries. It remains what it has always been, a military alliance of countries that agrees to military defense, but Russian doesn't wish to be a part of that since they have their own alliances and nor do most NATO members want Russia to be a part of it since they consider Russia one of their potential enemies. The fact that there is no longer the threat of the Soviet Union doesn't change the opinions of the leaders of the countries involved that it is an advantage to them to be part of an alliance for defense. They appear to perceive a number of threats like Russia and China, and the threat of terrorism on their soil. Most of this is in the article. Ultimately, as with all alliances, it is between a group of people who have at least one similar goal and are part of that alliance to further that goal Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

This article is regularly being vandalized, and should be locked up to prevent that. DWolf2k2 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it receives much vandalism. Once or twice per day is not, IMO, enough to warrant page protection. However, if you want to request protection, this isn't the place - please go to WP:RPP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know where or how to request protection, so thanks for the headsup.DWolf2k2 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania and Croatia

At the Nato summit in Bucharest those two countries were invited to start accession talks, but political procedures will take some time. A&C will join at the earliest in January 2009. Gugganij (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania and Croati are invited OFFICIALLY

[17] Kosova2008 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO or Nato?

I can't see this mentioned, so I'll ask. Why, in the last few years, have news organisations started using Nato instead of NATO? If you look at the bottom of the article page you'll see the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph using Nato. NATO itself uses all capitals (see http://www.nato.int), so what's happening? Poor quality of sub-editors?--ML5 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)