Talk:Enlargement of NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

1991 Commitment[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Neutrality of the article[edit]

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)