Talk:NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article NATO has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Cold War (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject NATO    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
WikiProject Organizations (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject North America (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Criticism of NATO[edit]

I think a section of Criticism of NATO must be included in the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Argentina be added as a global partner?[edit]

Should Argentina be added as global partner, as it is considered a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) since 1998? --Nytsuga (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That refers to its relationship with the US, not NATO. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the "Quint" belong here?[edit]

Barjimoa (talk · contribs) added a section last month titled "NATO Quint" in the "Participating countries" section. I hadn't heard of this informal grouping, and looking a how its mentioned in the sources used, I'm not sure it belongs here. For one, its never referred as the "NATO Quint," and the informal group's relation to NATO seems to be just that they're all members. Referring to them as a "decision-making group" also seems to be inaccurate, as sources merely refer to meetings and dialogue. Then there is the issue of it being "informal", and this article otherwise deals solely with formal structures and partnerships. I think we can summarize this with a sentence in the "NATO Council" section, particularly since the same Quint information is duplicated at United States–European Union relations#NATO Quint.-- Patrick, oѺ 16:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is described as an unoffical and informal decision making group. If there's no place here for informal and unofficial groups, than you are right. I agree with your edit. I have introduced a redirect to the EU-US relations page. If you want a specific source using the term NATO Quint is here for example.

https://books.google.it/books?id=-HlbZgdaa94C&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=NATO+Quint&source=bl&ots=V9HnRBeW13&sig=1BIk6u6-d9H0pu8YQUbIg2vdWLA&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwil3pD2mZDHAhVHHh4KHUd7AGs

When sources use only the term Quint it' because they are alredy sources focused on NATO. The problem is that the Quint is also seen as having a sort of impact on EU-US relations. This is why it was in both pages. Barjimoa (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's nothing wrong with having the same info in two places, but it probably makes more sense on a broader relations article than here.-- Patrick, oѺ 21:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo war[edit]

Patrickneil, please discuss on the talk page before reverting, it is at once more polite and more in keeping with WP policies. You say that you don't think WSWS is a "NPOV source". It is not enough for you to "think", you have to provide evidence. In any case, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." as you surely know. If you insist I can remove the link, there are more than enough sources in the MSM. Contrary to what you claim, Resolution 1199 is important. It does not allow the use of force by NATO. Finally, the claim made in the article, that Richard Holbrooke "handed the matter to NATO", is false. He simply did not have the authority to do that. I have nothing against Nato, I just think that inaccuracies are very detrimental to Wikipedia. Even when the intention is good. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My issue with this edit is that, besides being POV, it just doesn't belong here. The World Socialist Web Site article refers to a British agency report from 2000, and since it doesn't use the terms "controversy" or "Security Council", I'm not sure how we can use it to source the statements that NATO's Kosovo intervention "remained controversial" or that NATO "did not gain the approval of the UN Security Council". What you could say using this source is "A 2000 report from the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee found inconsistencies between the NATO mission and the UN Charter." That said, this is just a three paragraph summary of the intervention, and that kind of detail belongs more on the article NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, perhaps in the Attitudes towards the campaign section. The sentence about Holbrooke is actually not original, it is from the Kosovo War article. If you want to suggest a different verb for Richard Holbrooke, that would be fine, and though "handed over" is supported by this BBC article I don't think its actually necessary for this section to specify. Its just as accurate to say "talks broke down on 23 March" period "bombing started 24 March" period. Would that work?-- Patrick, oѺ 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I now completely agree with you. The statement that worried me the most was the claim that Richard Holbrooke "handed the matter to NATO", since it is demonstrably false. He did not have the authority to do that. Thank you for your help. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There's not much to discuss here. The "World Socialist Website" is not a reliable source. The edit is POV. That's about it. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

VM my edit was minor and it's not POV. Never mind WSWS, what I want removed is the claim that Richard Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO. This is factually false. Holbrooke, as I already pointed out, simply did not have the authority to do that. A UN resolution was needed. I just dont want to leave inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Please, understand me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If you don't care about "The World Socialist Website" then stop trying to use it as a source. And you are not just implementing a minor word change - although current version is straight from a reliable source - but adding in POV. This is pretty obvious so please don't sit there and pretend otherwise. Usually people who edit Wikipedia are literate so they read the actual changes. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed the offending source and replaced it by CNN. The rest is purely factual. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, not really, except for some strange definition of "purely factual". This source does not say that NATO "failed to get UN approval". It says that NATO said that it didn't need NATO approval. That's different, and your phrasing is POV. It's like saying "Volunteer Marek failed to pass the bar exam". Which is "purely factual", because I've never tried to take the exam. But, since I've never tried to take the exam, phrasing it that way would most definitely misrepresent the situation in an dishonest manner. The previous text accurately reflected a reliable sources, the BBC.
Also, you appear to be tip-toeing right to the 3RR rule and then waiting it out till "the clock expires" in order to continue the edit war. I'd appreciate it if you self reverted until consensus wording is hammered out here on talk. Volunteer Marek  23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that indeed was not improvement. This is not Yugoslavian government, but Miloshevich (as in previous version); passing judgement in the intro ("controversial") is also not an improvement, but an attempt to prove something, etc. So reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be honest, you very well know that Nato bombing campaign did not have UN approval, no matter the wording. You just want to hide this embarassing fact, thats all. Also, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO" is a pure lie. I see that MVBW has reverted me so that you don't violate the 3RR rule. Smart, but not very honest. Tell me honestly why you suddenly became interested in the article NATO just after I edited it and your only contribution was to revert me (as it was the case for Human rights in Venezuela and several others). It must be contagious too, since MVBW is in lockstep with you. Did you think I am so stupid that I would't notice? This is edit warring made by an organized group. Now, if you have sound arguments as to why we should keep the Holbrooke thing and keep out the fact that NATO did not have UN authorization, I am ready to listen to them. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but we do not hide anything. We have a subsection about this war on this page, and we tell about it in the introduction. Should we tell more about this in intro? This is something debatable because this page is about NATO as an organization, not about this particular military campaign by NATO.My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer your present tone but I still do not agree. This wasn't in the lead, but in the subsection about the Kosovo intervention. You don't seem to be familiar with the article. What sparked your sudden interest in it, anyway? Just the fact that I edited it? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, this is not the fact that you edited it. I can easily answer this question, however this talk page is about improvement of the article (as banner tells). Neither this is worth discussion on user talk pages. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

<-- Againstdisinformation: "(Personal attacks then) Also, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO" is a pure lie". From the BBC source: "His decision to launch military action came after US special envoy Richard Holbrooke admitted that his peace mission to Belgrade had failed, and handed the matter over to Nato.". So write a letter to BBC.

The source you're adding [1] says nothing about "this decision has remained controversial". That's all you POV pushing. As to the "failure to get UN SC approval", that's already explained above. You're misrepresenting the sources and misrepresenting the situation.

And I don't feel like addressing your personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  03:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Holbrooke hade no authority, "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO", was just an ambiguous statement from the BBC, as I am certain you are aware. I'll try to get documents from the UN. I hope this will satisfy you. As for personal attacks, there are none on my part, my questions were genuine. Againstdisinformation (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Patrickneil: Thank you for correcting this mistake, which had escaped my attention. I think it was just a typo. I hope that, now, Volunteer Marek won't object to leaving out the phrase "Holbrooke handed the matter to NATO". Holbrooke's mission failed and NATO started the bombing campaign. The change would not change the substance but, the way it is written, one gets the impression that Holbrooke himself took the decision, when he had no authority to do so. Also, I am not happy with "Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown on KLA". "Serbian-led" suggests that there was a coalition. In my opinion "Yugoslav government's crackdown" is at once more neutral and more accurate. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that would be misleading. First, this is not Yugoslavia, but Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which is a different country. Secondly, that was not "crackdown on KLA", but ethnic cleansing by Miloshevich, which has been the actual reason for NATO intervention. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Source says "handed over". If you want different wording find a source. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but not on "handed over", since it is inaccurate. However, this is not essential. Since you seem determined to keep it I propose we leave it and replace "serbian-led" by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Serbian led is not inaccurate. What do the sources say?  Volunteer Marek  03:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources cited say nothing about the crack down, but UNSCR 1199 mentions "the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army". Therefore, we should adopt a similar language. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No, we should not adopt a similar language for two reasons: (a) the original UN papers, texts of decisions by courts and other similar documents are primary sources that generally should not be used if there are reliable secondary sources (books, news reports, etc.), (b) this is something only one source tells, but we should briefly summarize content of multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry VM and MVBW, but your arguments appear to me to be unsound and POVish. I have made an effort to give a version which is neutral and should be acceptable to you. If this is not the case, we should make a request for dispute resolution. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Both words of the term "Yugoslav government" are inaccurate, or at least we have more accurate options. The terms "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or "Serbia and Montenegro" are both more specific than saying "Yugoslav" when refering to country in question, but the trouble with "government" is that Serbia and Montenegro weren't united in this, as Montenegrin leader Milo Đukanović was actively opposed to Milošević's activities, which is why it's even better to specify who led the crack down. After 16 years, this should be fairly settled history where textural sources are our best option to have perspective. The CNN article is okay, but doesn't actually mention the operation. If you're not satisfied, dispute resolution is an option, but I think there looks like a consensus against these changes.-- Patrick, oѺ 03:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Patrick, I think you are honest and you know the subject very well, as is attested by your article Enlargement of NATO. Therefore, I will try to explain my position to you in the most candid terms. I have nothing against replacing "Yugoslavia" by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". What I am opposed to is the wording "Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown". It is an essentialization which may be good enough for the media but an encyclopedia should avoid editorializing. If I read "George W. Bush's American-led invasion of Iraq", it would make me feel just as uneasy. The second thing I don't like is the claim that Holbrooke "handed the matter over to NATO", which he had no authority to do. I first thought that describing him as a UN envoy was just a typo. After careful consideration, I now think that this was a wilful attempt to mislead people into believing that NATO's bombing campaign was mandated by the UN. I am all the more inclined to think so that Volunteer Marek just removed all reference to the fact that there was no UN approval in order to conceal the fact[unsc 1]. As for consensus, I am sorry to say that VM has no particular interest in this article, he never edited it before I did. He is just carrying out a vendetta against me because we have differences on some articles about events in Eastern Europe. He simply follows me on any page I visit and systematically reverts my edits, irrespective of their contents. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been no new comments. Therefore, if no one disagrees, I will restore a neutral formulation. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that anyone above agreed with your edits. Simply telling "last word" in discussion does not mean anything. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ The UN Security Council did not authorize the military intervention, but was justified by the need to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe according to NATO members.

Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page).

I shared this thought with User:Againstdisinformation on my talk page, but I would point out that the sources for the third paragraph in the Kosovo War section could use some improvement, and that might be a place we could direct some energy. The two sources are a primary source from the 2001 NATO Handbook which needs an archive.org URL, and a CNN article from the day that the bombing campaign started in 1999. I do think that we should be able to find current textual sources with better long term perspective, and suggest the source I had added in my previous attempt to compromise, which has a chapter titled "Explaining NATO Decision to Bypass the Security Council", as a starting point. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

British style of capitalisation for an anacronym that is pronounced as a word[edit]

I'm curious as to how it was decided to use the more American style of all capitals for NATO instead of the more British Nato, given that the article is in British English. If you check UK newspapers they more or less all use Nato. See for example Guardian Style guide:

Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase.

I can see it has been mentioned on this page before, but can't find any discussion. --  21:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR, we try to use the variety of English that is native to the article's subject. So if NATO spells it "Defence Organization" that's what the article should use. "Oxford spelling" (which I'm not sure is necessarily what The Guardian defines) is the closest to their style, but even NATO isn't always consistent in spelling. You can, for example, visit NATO Defense College in Rome. My reaction here is that since NATO itself capitalizes the acronym so should we, and that's per a bunch of Wiki-policies, like WP:ACRONYMTITLE or similarly WP:COMMONTERM.-- Patrick, oѺ 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
My reaction to that is that WP:ACRONYMTITLE does not seem to consider at all the question of capitalisation styles, and WP:COMMONTERM seems to say exactly the opposite of what you imply as in "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." - in this case wouldn't British English sources show an overwhelming preference for Nato? --  00:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)