Jump to content

Talk:Enlargement of NATO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:8388:1603:cb00:3ad5:47ff:fe18:cc7f (talk) at 19:05, 12 November 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Commitment

I reverted an edit to the article earlier, and then put it back, but wanted to allow for a discussion. Both here and on the article NATO, I've seen editors really pack in several paragraphs on an alleged verbal commitment that American or European representatives gave about NATO expansion during the 1991 Two Plus Four negotiations. I have studied the issue, and conclude that there is very little substance to discuss here. It seems to be just the opinions of one biased observer vs those of another biased observer. If a line about NATO expansion was included in the treaty, then it would be notable, but dedicating a subsection of this article to hearsay is probably undue weight. We already have a good amount on the topic at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO, on the main NATO article, and here. The 2+4 Treaty was not with NATO but with six independent states, doesn't mention NATO, and Gorbachev has recanted his claims on the topic, which I think makes it less notable, rather than more. Further, I think it betrays a perspective that the article should avoid, one of a bipolar world with countries like a Risk board, seeing enlargement as NATO "advancing" rather than as individual countries that elected, and generally continue to elect, politicians in favor of a common military alliance. Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the article

The whole article reads like a pro-NATO article. Who were the ones who wrote the article? NATO headquarter?

But anyway, aside from this, I think that the sources linked into the article must be reviewed a LOT more critically to really show that what is claimed, is true. To get a better overview, I would recommend that in particular when polls are done to:

a) show more polls in general, even critical ones rather than the default "public opinion increasingly shows a pro-NATO attitude" bla bla

and

b) ensure that these links are coming from somewhat objective sources. I would assume that university staff in unrelated countries may be a good source, among others. Better than media outlets owned by private interests for sure. As a reader, I don't want to read propaganda, no matter in which way - I want to focus on the FACTS. 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enlargement_of_NATO&oldid=809984975"