Talk:North Macedonia–NATO relations

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

Macedonia request for comment[edit]

The Centralized discussion set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (Pages 2 and 4 deal with the conventions most directly affecting this article.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accession of Macedonia to 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pics in article[edit]

There are two pics. They are of graffiti in Ohrid. Recent removals are on reasons based on wp:idontlikeit (i.e: "This is anti-nato propaganda. And makes the article not neutral" [1]) more then anything else. There is a segment of the population that opposes NATO. That has fluctuated over the years. The data in the article on support numbers is from 2008. No editor has bothered to put more current numbers about support/opposition in the article and also how that is reflected among the two large communities of Macedonians and Albanians in the country. I don't see why pictures of the sort that has a view about NATO from the country reflected as graffiti should not be in the article. The pictures where taken in Ohrid and these pieces of text where in prominent locations. If people have pictures of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place pictures, etc.Resnjari (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not based on wp:idontlikeit, that's your opnion, which is incorrect. Grafiti of some anti-Nato expression has nothing to do with the main article and is just propaganda from the anti-Nato camp. They shouldn't be in the article cause they don't contribute anything, someone making graffiti doesn't make it "majority support for anti-nato", provide sources and write in the text about it, but some graffiti pictures are not relevant. Ljuvlig (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do, they reflect a view and give a visual of that view. There is opposition to NATO in the country and its not a clear cut one way street of support.Resnjari (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article has two main views: One of the supporters of NATO in Macedonia and one of those Macedonians who oppose NATO. Both deserve pics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Photos are always a subjective element of Wikipedia articles, but their selection should probably compliment the prose they're included with. These images were included in the section "Negotiation progress" next to a table, which is why I might suggest they're not the best choice. If we had a prose section discussing opposition to NATO membership, then they would be an appropriate illustration. If we do want an image here, I think one of the options in Commons:Category:Prespes agreement might work, since that's directly related to the dates in the table. Or I know on similar articles, we've used images of joint military exercizes, and there are a number of options in Commons:Category:Krivolak (Army Training Area)-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If its data on support and opposition that needs to be expanded, that's fine. The pics reflect a view that does exist in the country. There is opposition to NATO and though it may not be the overall majority opinion (depending on the year and geopolitical situation) in the country, it exists among a sizable part of the population.Resnjari (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that, and maybe if/when a "Public opinion" section is written, or the page expands into a fuller Macedonia–NATO relations article, they would be more appropriate. I also want to mention that including two contrary viewpoints next to each other is not actually how neutrality works on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure the idea of adding an "pro" image is a good fix.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this article gets it name changed to something else after Macedonia becomes a member, the overall issue about that over the years that has existed is two main opinions about NATO in the country, one in support and one in opposition. I don't about pics that exist about being in favour in the wiki commons. If someone sees something and or is in the country and takes a photo, that's good they can add for here. But there are pics reflecting a view of opposition and that should be in the article. I'm going to write and expand the public opinion section and re add t he pics as were. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on that section, I think its generally a fine addition to the page. One other note, I'd suggest choosing just one of those images to use. Template:Multiple image is discouraged except when absolutely necessary due to formatting issues it can cause some readers, and as part of a larger preference against image galleries. Thanks-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have accessed the article through my mobile phone, it comes out ok with the images. I can split the images into two seperate ones for the section (one being left and the other right). Two images don't make a gallery. The policy refers to many images present in a article and it causing issues. Anyway both images give context to the section.Resnjari (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One image is sufficent to illustrate a section like this. Thanks.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no issue with having two images in the article. I don't see a problem with it or for that matter the removal of the captions. Not everyone can read Macedonian or the Cyrillic alphabet. Please, no wp:idontlikeit.Resnjari (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring. You are both arguably in violation of WP:3RR. Achieve concensus and then take action. If you cannot reach a concensus, submit a request for comment. --Michail (blah) 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the stable version as pics have been there a while. As for edit warring claims i added content that was separate from the pics issue. No one contested those additions.Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went with one of the images as the graffiti is more visible than the other for the page and size. Caption for the picture should stay. I can read and write in Macedonian, but most people who read the article cannot.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Michail, i thought that you where a new editor but instead you have been around a long while and only changed their signature so that the signature is confusingly different from the user name. Please have a read of WP:SIGPROB. It says Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]] or [[User:Example|Nickname]]) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form [[User:Example|User:Example]]/Nickname.Resnjari (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the text from this image both as ALT Text and in the file description, so it'll be available if a reader wants to know more by hovering or clicking on the image. And as an editor who also signs with what they want to be called, rather than their full username, please feel free to sign however you like here Michail, you're absolutely correct about consensus then action when edits are disputed.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on signatures that can be confusing to other editors whether someone is new or an old hand if its different from the active username. Hence i cited WP:SIGPROB.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it strike nobody else as bizarre to have an image of some random anti-NATO scribble in a section that only talks about strong pro-NATO sentiment in the country from both officials and public opinion? Do we really need to give equal weight to the opinion of a single anonymous hoodlum? Just because the graffiti exists doesn't mean it bears including in an encyclopedia article. 199.247.42.202 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti NATO sentiment is real in Macedonia and has at times been the dominant view toward the military alliance by the public of which a sizable part of the population still is of that opinion (that is accounted for via RS in the article). The political elite of the country is a small group and the article does not only encompass them but views from the masses as well. The image reflects the Anti-NATO view as a visual. I see no issue with it being in the article.Resnjari (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's real according to you in your head, providing sources instead of talking nonsense about this. It's cause you want it to be that way, for all I know you could of done that graffiti, some graffiti of allegedly anti-Nato needs sources not some random graffiti.Ljuvlig (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A kind word of advice to you. WP:idontlikeit is not a reason for removal. Anti-NATO sentiment is real in the country and has at times dominated among the population. That is sourced in the article via RS. The image is a visual manifestation of anti-NATO sentiment and relevant. If anyone has images that give a visual of pro-NATO sentiment, they are more then welcome to place such a image in the article.Resnjari (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't see the point with having that graffiti image in the article. An image of some random graffiti doesn't really contribute with anything to the article. --Glentamara (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue here, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Its a visual representation of anti-Nato sentiment in the country. Anti-Nato sentiment exists in the country and has ranged from being a majority stance to one of a sizable minority in the country. That is accounted for via RS in the article. If editors have pictures showing pro-NATO sentiment they are more then welcome to add.Resnjari (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two pics, one pro-NATO and one anti-NATO would be OK. After all, such pics illustrate the Public Opinion section. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, please don't participate in edit warring. If someone else reverts your edit, that doesn't make it okay to revert theirs. As Michail noted last week, we can bring the issue up at WP:RFC if editors here can't reach a consensus. Second, I mentioned this above, but giving one opinion followed by the opposite opinion is not how neutrality works, so I don't think a quote "pro-NATO" image is the right solution. With regards to the file, I'd agree its not exactly a "quality image," but we discussed it last week, and its fine to illustrate the Public opinion section. I will note that we've used a similar image for years in the Serbia sections on Foreign relations of NATO and Enlargement of NATO.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing wp:idontlikeit reasons. That's about all. Yes i understand that some editors are uncomfortable that anti-NATO sentiment exists in Macedonia and may want to sideline it due to a celebrated accession etc and to make the article have a possibly everyone is pro-NATO in the country slant which is not the case. As i said before, anti-NATO sentiment is accounted for in RS and the pic is a visual of such sentiments in current times. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Resnjari (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that similar images of the sort exist on the Graffiti page. They are there because they explain via visuals the content in the article to readers. The picture of the graffiti in this article was from the boycott movement that was against the referendum on the name change last year. The graffiti is of historical relevance.Resnjari (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me this has nothing to do with pro or anti NATO. I just don't see the point of having a random graffiti tag in the article, it drags down the quality of the article. It doesn't say anything about any sentiments in any direction. You can probably find a anti-NATO tag as well as a pro-NATO tag in any European country... It is completely different to have images of graffiti tags on the graffiti page as illustrations of what graffiti is, there it is really relevant and contributes to the content of the article. But if you want to keep the picture here it's fine for me, it's not a big issue for me to be honest. --Glentamara (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may not an image that is to the liking for some people based from a aesthetic point of view. But such images have been used in Wikipedia articles. Actually the image does have anti-NATO sentiment. If you can read Macedonian this would be apparent immediately. The graffiti singles out NATO, states a view of it and then has the hashtag #boycott. The hashtag #boycott was one of the most prominent slogans of the boycott movement on the Macedonian referendum last year on the name change, something which most of the Macedonian population did indeed boycott. This image is a visual representation of anti-NATO sentiments among the population that has been at times the dominant view in the country and remains a view of a sizable part of the population for over a decade toward NATO (its accounted via RS in the article). Anyway i hope that goes to someway clarifying the matter further. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give evidence/facts instead of your own opinion.Ljuvlig (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Macedonia to NATO.[edit]

On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Given that the country was renamed North Macedonia so that it could enter NATO, should this article be renamed Accession of North Macedonia to NATO? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving, since the country ratified the accession protocol to NATO under its new name. Nice4What (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't have been done yet. Going by this logic, this article's title should've used fYROM all along. There's an active discussion going on at Talk:Republic of Macedonia that may lead to discussion to amend WP:MOSMAC which will provide us guidance in naming this article. Until that's done, the move here should be reverted (depending on outcome). --Local hero talk 15:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The move should be reverted. There are discussions on both the talkpage of the Republic of Macedonia article and about updating MOSMAC. Stable version of names should stay until MOSMAC is updated.Resnjari (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big question is the name of the accession protocol. I have tried but didn't find it. L.tak (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also apart from issues with having "north" at the moment and so on, if the article was to be moved, since Macedonia will be a NATO member in the not to distant future the article might as well become North Macedonia–NATO relations. But only after all countries sign the protocol and WP:MOSMAC is updated.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and until that's done, I'm reverting most of today's "North" additions to the article. Once MOSMAC is updated, we can make any needed changes. --Local hero talk 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes revert them all including the pagemove. MOSMAC discussions will be active for some weeks anyway before something final is done and dusted.Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not move back or forth until there is a decision/consensus on this. However in all the moving also the formal title of the treaty was changed. I will move the field "long name" in the treaty box to the formal name of the treaty, as that is not something subject to discussion here (I hope!)L.tak (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved to Accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO; Wikipedia rules should not decide what the country is called. The country is now Northern Macedonia, which means that Wikipedia should follow suit and not make its own rules regarding country names. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy called Naming Conventions (Macedonia) and it is in effect until the new one can be implemented. --Michail (blah) 18:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it. Like I said, it's stupid for Wikipedia to decide which name is the only one you can use when Northern Macedonia is just as good and even more official. You should be able to use both, but titles should have the official name. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at the moment. WP:MOSMAC is in force until its updated (current discussions are underway on the matter). Until then stable versions of the article pagenames apply. Plus waiting a month or two does not hurt anyone before changes are done. Having a new and updated WP:MOSMAC will then be a guide on how to proceed.Resnjari (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is bigger than this one article, and we should follow the Wikipedia convention for now. Various editors are working on a proposal for how to do the name changing, feel free to register your comments at this RfC Draft or or maybe this one, but discussions on this talk page should probably stay focused to the country's progress with regards to NATO. I expect an RfC to be up later this week, but then its a minimum of 30 days till that closes, after which I do assume we will be moving this article to "Accession of North Macedonia to NATO." Just be patient!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article has move protection, and can be moved only by an admin. An hour or so ago an editor did a cut-and-paste move, which of course loses the attribution of the history. I've reverted the cut-and-paste and explained to the editor, but it obviously needs an eye keeping open for similar occurrences. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Thanks for notifying me about Attributions. Now about the topic: Just a day after the last comment in this discussion, the community with an overwhelming consensus, moved Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia. Every other article about that country, has already been moved and this is one of the last, unmoved articles remaining, only due to the SemiProtection lock. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article North Macedonia is in its "new" location already, it is hard to maintain this here. I guess this doesn't need to be going through the formal requested move, and we can just find an admin who is willing to move it. Any objections? L.tak (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move! --Glentamara (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been moved. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m confused did Greece sign the membership protcal or not?[edit]

Greece signed it first but awaits approval from president. Then Slovenia followed and awaits approval as well Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signed and approved. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request - 14 February 2019[edit]

Albania also ratified it, [1] Also, since Greece & Slovenia also ratified it, shouldn't the date be also written on the "Negotiation Progress" part? 69.14.238.177 (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 00:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://exit.al/en/2019/02/14/albanian-parliament-unanimously-ratifies-north-macedonias-nato-accession/

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019[edit]

The accession protocol was ratified by a couple of goverments and it isn't updated here, I would ask for an update Englans (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: what updates would you like made specifically? (In the format of "Change XXX to YYY" ideally) -- DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several Government passing ratification that need to be noted[edit]

Albania: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/15/albanias-parliament-among-latest-to-ratify-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Bulgaria: https://sofiaglobe.com/2019/02/20/bulgarian-parliament-ratifies-north-macedonias-nato-accession-protocol/ Slovenia: http://www.vlada.si/en/media_room/news_from_slovenia/news_from_slovenia/article/slovenia_ratifies_north_macedonias_nato_accession_protocol_62192/ Montenegro: https://twitter.com/MeGovernment/status/1096020256747864064

These are all official. Should be updated now. In which I will do. --WeifengYang (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the table in the "Negotiation progress" section, as several editors have noted, is intended to list the final date that a given country deposits its "instrument of ratification", which is often some time after a measure passes the local parliament or is signed by the head of state. Perhaps instead of the back and forth, we can just split the column into two dates, one for local ratification and one for depositing, since it seems like a loosing game to try to keep editors from adding in the local ratification date in this table.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Indeed the ratification is a process and separate columns for signing by the head of the respective state and depositing the ratification to the US government are more appropriate. --gogo3o 10:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But I don't see how this will stop people from adding the dates back when the agreement is passed by a national parliament. For example, at the moment in the table we have Albania and Bulgaria (ratified by parliaments), and Greece and Slovenia (ratification bill signed by heads of state). Maybe better to have a column for when the parliament ratifies and one for when ratification is deposited to the US government. Or three columns (parliament, head of state, depositing). YantarCoast (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I tried to make this happen after suggesting it, and realized it causes issues with the sortable table. It would be a million times easier if the table wasn't sortable so I have to ask, would anyone miss if they couldn't sort this table? Sorting is kind of broken with the "Ratified by" row anyways. Maybe if we broke the top four rows off and had two tables? This discussion is getting a bit messy, but Extended Cut suggested below that we mimic the table here. Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead an created a table under a new section heading "Ratification process" based on the table Extended Cut suggested, and others like it. I have an empty version at my sandbox. I copied the information from the prior table, but see it will need more info, hopefully other editors can help!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work; now we need the energy to keep it updated ;-). Two points that come to mind: Treaty accepting powers in UK are -formally- not with parliament, but they will discuss it according tot the ponsonby rule; so that probably needs a note. And I guess Belgium in this case will not need all of its parliaments, as I cannot imagine defense is a devolved matter... That part I will check tomorrow..... L.tak (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, it is a non-devolved Matter in Belgium (this site normally mentions all parliaments involved: http://reflex.raadvst-consetat.be/reflex/index.reflex?page=parlement&c=detail_get&d=detail&docid=51056), based on what happend with the Montenegro ratification... L.tak (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do worry it might be too much for the editors here, and there is a good chance it has more rows than are needed, since it was based off an EU/Ukraine treaty table which has some specific items (like a referendum in the Netherlands).-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree, that this is a bit overdone, for what's "just" a NATO accession. However, given the political angle and the interest in the topic, I guess It'll be pulled off ;-). L.tak (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request on 21 February 2019[edit]

Add date for Albania, Albania ratified it too. [1][2] Wikicreator1234 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 00:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.balkaneu.com/north-macedonia-four-countries-have-ratified-natos-accession-protocol-so-far/
  2. ^ http://top-channel.tv/english/northern-macedonia-thanks-albania-for-ratifying-the-nato-protocol/

make a table for ratification similar to the one on Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement page[edit]

Instead of all the edit warring it would be easier if there were separate columns in the table for parliaments, heads of state and the dates of deposting of ratification instruments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extended Cut (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE!!!!! Montenegro will ratify on Friday, March 1! Romania will ratify in March, Denmark and Hungary possibly in April. Croatia, Slovakia, Poland, Turkey and Iceland will also ratify in the coming weeks! The USA will ratify in autumn! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! Romania has not ratified so far! Only the commission discussed it! The final vote will be on april 5, according to the website of romanian parliament!

PDF format 2,1. Pl-x 50/2019 Proiectul de Lege pentru ratificarea Protocolului de aderare a Republicii Macedonia de Nord la Tratatul Atlanticului de Nord, semnat la Bruxelles, la 6 februarie 2019 (PL-x 50/2019) - lege ordinară Raport- Comisia pentru politică externă (Adoptare) - distribuit - 26.02.2019 Procedură de urgenţă Prima Cameră sesizată - Data prezentării în Biroul permanent 20.02.2019; data la care se împlineşte termenul constituţional pentru dezbatere şi vot final 05.04.2019, potrivit art.75 alin.(2) din Constituţie şi art.113 din Regulamentul Camerei Deputaţilor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.80.1 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The United States House of Representatives has nothing to do with ratifying North Macedonia's NATO membership. --Killuminator (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue with the ratification table[edit]

The table on the website looks fine, but in the app (android version) a lot of the countries have two rows per country. For some reason a few of the countries have the second row shifted over a column. For instance I'm looking at Slovenia, the second row has 20 February 2019 directly below the country name, Presidential Assent is under the date column and so on. A number of counties without dates (but not all) have the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.77.254 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE! ROMANIA (SENATE) WILL RATIFY THE PROTOCOL NEXT WEEK! I HAVE NO INFORMATION FROM THE REMAINING 22 STATES SO FAR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.84.170 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consent of assemblies[edit]

The parliaments of Denmark, Belgium and Slovakia approved the accession. Although the frame of Slovakia is covered by green colour, those of Denmark and Belgium are white. Is there a reason? Ooyamanobutatu (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is different way[edit]

I would like to know the reason. Ooyamanobutatu (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New problem with table[edit]

Please do not color country names! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.109.137 (talk • contribs)

Why not? For those where the ratification is fully completed through depositing the instrument of ratification that seems useful to me. Feel free to change if you disagree, but then: don't remove the factual info on deposit-of-ratification-dates. L.tak (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal[edit]

An IP tries to add the Portuguese assembly vote already for some time, and is reverted by another IP. The given ref is this vote (maybe a better overview of the status is at this link, and the reason for reversion seems "Portugal has not ratified yet"). Both can of course be true (and at the same time). Can someone who reads portuguese better than I am and understands the parliamentary process there indicate if this is the final vote of parliament on this matter and what would be the next step? It seems a vote was held in plenary, and that the next step is some kind of signature. Could that be the signature of the president? L.tak (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and at Unified Patent Court we did use this vote as the parliamentary approval and the signature as the presidential assent (in the next row) link here. I will ensorse the IP adding it, and invite both IPs to give their opinion here. L.tak (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add Portugal, until president signs that bill!
Why? we add countries regularly when a certain step is completed. There is a separate row in the table for the president, but that does not mean we cannot add the parliamentary approval once that part has been completed. L.tak (talk)
Hello, if the parliament has indeed given its approval, it should be added to the table. Once the President signs it, we'll add that too. IP, please take a look at the table and you'll notice we do this for all member states. Chase1493 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norway[edit]

The Norwegian parliament approved the accession protocol, but we were recording it as if there had been 72 abstentions. In fact, there were not 72 abstentions, but 72 persons who were not present at the vote (Ikke til stede), as can be seen here (the link is 1 click away from the link given in the article).... Therefore the 72 should be changed to "0" in the abstentions column. An IP has reverted that change (which had this info in the edit summary) without any explanation, so I am restating it... L.tak (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Canada[edit]

Canada has ratified accession protocol earlier today. In this table there are columns for House of Commons and Senate. I don't know where to add ratification details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.11.46 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User, do you have a link/source from the Canadian parliament's website that details both chambers voting tallies for ratification? I will happily add the information in if you can direct me to it. Thanks! Chase1493 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian parliament is not required to vote on treaties. See [2]. Similar to UK.--42.3.185.211 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I did not know that. From what I read, there would still be a non-binding motion and some kind of vote tally (even if it's just procedural). Are there any numbers for that? Chase1493 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, remove Senate column and add one column for House of Commons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.11.46 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parliaments' local names[edit]

Why nordic and some other countries have local names of parliaments in the table but Baltic countries don't? --90.143.22.135 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I'll change them to the official names if someone hasn't already. Chase1493 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium and Denmark[edit]

Belgium and Denmark have deposited their instrument of ratification to the US government, but royal assents aren't signed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.19.43 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, please specify your request, or edit the page. Are you indicating the royal assent is not signed, or that we apparently don't have reported that? L.tak (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I noticed that too. In our entries it shows them as deposited, but the Royal Assent section is blank. I did see a news article stating that 11 out of 29 have deposited, perhaps it's just a matter of tracking this down on the government websites? Chase1493 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Accession Protocol of Montenegro was promulgated by the King of Belgium on 22 December 2016 but was not published until 23 January 2017.[3]--42.3.184.50 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, thus it must be necessary, only the publication of the assent is not necessary... I am afraid we'll have to wait a bit to get the date filled in there, but that doesn't mean the assent is unnecessary of course... L.tak (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Accession Protocol of North Macedonia was promulgated by the King of Belgium on 17 May 2019 but was published on 1 August 2019 [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.12.119 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


7 STATES LEFT!

7 states must ratify the protocol. Great Britain will do it in the coming weeks, the USA in august. The Netherlands in November! Italy unknown, Iceland in autumn! France and Spain totally unknown, in Paris and Madrid the whole process did not even start so far! Sascha, Germany, Journalist

UK Ratification Details[edit]

The table keeps being edited to say that the UK House of Commons "passed" the accession protocol on 16 October 2019, despite the fact that that is wholly false. The UK House of Commons does not ordinarily vote to "pass" treaties,[UK Ratification Details 1] and did not take any action of any kind relevant to the protocol, or to NATO or North Macedonia generally on that date.[UK Ratification Details 2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambsbridge (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the House of Commons declining to take up the treaty when it was put to them, the treaty did pass through the House of Commons. Sladnick (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That s not how it constitutionally works although in practice it has that effect. In some other treaty tables we added a note on the specifications. I will try to do so tonight... L.tak (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's misleading either way, "Passed" implies affirmative action. Other treaty tables include the UK parliament only when they approve some legislative change needed before the treaty can be ratified by the executive, and that seems to me like a much better way to do it than to imply that they affirmatively approved any and all treaties which don't merit debate time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambsbridge (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree and have now created the note I was contemplating. Feel free to tweak if necessary... L.tak (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support changing "Passed" to "Not Rejected"? Lambsbridge (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think passed is not appropriate. That's why I suggested "No negative resolution passed", and would support it to "no negative resolution tabled". "not rejected" I would accept as a compromise... L.tak (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This note is a very good explanation of ratification process in the United Kingdom, but I think that appropriate place for all notes is reference column! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.44.1 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's helpful, as we have contention on the column with "passed", "not tabled" etc, it is most helpful to link the note there. Btw, I see you changed back to "passed" which is not correct and objected to by others in the discussion here. Could you comment on the other options? L.tak (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05855
  2. ^ https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmvote/191016v01.html

Spain did deposit[edit]

I saw some back and forth editing earlier, but Spain did indeed deposit their signed treaty today, their embassy tweeted a photo and a video. I believe all that is left is for North Macedonia to deposit their ratification act that was passed in February in Brussels. Maybe that will happen tomorrow or Monday? Not exactly sure how that's going to work considering the HQ is shutdown for COVID-19 though. When it does happen, there probably will be ample news about it, which, heads up to editors here, will likely result in a bunch of new editing, probably some vandalism. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"North Macedonia Joins the NATO Alliance" press release on US Department of State site (https://www.state.gov/north-macedonia-joins-the-nato-alliance). So may it be considered a member state now and such changes should be made? Risto est (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map projection[edit]

The map in the infobox uses the Mercator projection, which is known for distorting the sizes of landmasses. Can we replace it with the Robinson projection (or something similar to that) to avoid this? Glades12 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NATO has a map that isn't Mercator, maybe use that one?Muddymuck (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the map is only cosmetic, the exact proportions of each country is mostly irrelevant. Other NATO accession articles I've checked (e.g. Montenegro) also have this projection. If it is changed here, it should be aligned on all articles of this nature. IceWelder [✉] 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven abstentions[edit]

Seven US senators abstained from the vote. This is clearly stated in the source and I hope whoever is reverting my edit can tell me why it is being constantly set to zero. Tinyds (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven senators were not present during the vote. In the US Senate senators may be vote in favour (Yea) or against (Nay). Abstention is not recognized in Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.122.161.222 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is going back and forth because both are right. In the U.S. Senate, to "abstain" from a vote, a senator has to stand up and give a reason for abstaining, i.e. voting "present." But in this case I believe the seven (mainly Democratic presidential candidates) were on the campaign trail, i.e. "not present." But for this table, both 7 and 0 are right because our marking system (In favour/Against/Abstaining) doesn't make a distinction between present and not-present.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Patrickneil, regardless of how this is counted, it should be the same for every country. In the case of Iceland, for example, there were 11 abstentions, as well as another 11 people not present, yet the column mentions only 11 in total. If that column lists active abstentions, the US' column should do so as well, and vice-versa. IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with that. If you click the "AB" link at the top of the column, it takes you to the article Abstention, which has a paragraph about the U.S. Senate rules, so I agree the more consistent option is zero, i.e. active abstentions. I just could also see the result of this being a footnote because clearly this is confusing to readers.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the consistent way to do indeed, and what we generally do in these tables... L.tak (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is more important than the arcane details of the US Senate that can be expanded in a footnote.--Muddymuck (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Croatia–NATO relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia–NATO_relations&oldid=1215926505"