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.
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.
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.
I think a section of Criticism of NATO must be included in the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I second that. I came here in search of such a section, only to be disappointed. I would like to add information from this source. nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/it-time-america-quit-nato-15615 Benjamin (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't need to reliable if it's only talking about opinion. Perhaps some more reliable sources could be found for the facts and figures it mentions, but there certainly should be a criticism section. Also, it's notable because Donald Trump linked to it, so it's more than just an insignificant minority opinion. There should be other perspectives of course; this is just a start. Benjamin (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, The National Interest is overtly biased, but it seems fairly reliable. It is a professional magazine with a long history. Benjamin (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For an opinion article to be quoted in a high level article like this, it should be a prominent article which has led to other commentary, news reports, etc or be written by a recognised expert on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there perhaps another article that would be more appropriate for this information? Benjamin (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that entire books have been written discussing NATO, they would be better sources than op-eds. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment, NATO is not an obscure topic, and there's plenty of mainstream, published commentary on the organization in research articles and widely available books. On the broader topic of this discussion, I have to come down hard against a separate "Criticism" section. I do not believe such a section here would be able to adhere to Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, particularly on holding a neutral point of view. Such a section would also quickly become an indiscriminate collection of private opinions and poorly sourced conspiracy theories. This discussion has come up previously on this talk page, and the answer now as then is that critical viewpoints can and should be integrated into the existing sections. If say, you feel that the article glosses over civilian casualties in Libya, then propose a sourced addition to the Libya intervention subsection.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I take issue with the idea that a criticism page is not neutral. Without such a page categorical criticisms have no place and that is, in fact, tacitly detrimenal to the notion of a neutral and balanced point of view. In fact, the Wikipedia pages on the UN, WTO, IMF and the World Bank, which are similar to NATO by being international treaties, all have criticism sections. BRICS, which is an alliance closely analagous to NATO has a "reception" section which might serve the purpose for this NATO page as well. 220.127.116.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Benjamin, I've just removed the material you just added given there wasn't support for it here, and it was presenting one person's opinion as a wide-ranging fact. I agree with Patrick's comments. There's been lots of commentary around NATO over the years, and the article should seek to do justice to it rather than include non-rigorously selected recent views. For instance, there were multiple major protest campaigns against (and for?) NATO throughout the Cold War and afterwards, and experts and national leaders have debated the benefits of the alliance and how it operates for generations now. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree with others in that there should definitely be a "Criticism" section in this article. Even though the opposition might not be extremely broad (or present in mainstream media), NATO is a very controversial project. And I think it is hard to deny that there is plenty of evidence for this. I do think that it would be possible to display different threads or concrete occasions of criticism in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's concern for a neutral stand point. Who can make a good start? Best, --Diddimus (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly a bone of contention to the Putin regime, Red China, and dictatorships throughout the world. You'll hear the sound of crickets chirping, however, in 95% or more of the Western world's homes about any problems with it. That mostly comes from far-left liberals who get cranky. The only controversy in the press I've ever read was about who pays what share among the members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Considering the recent rampant news on how much funding of NATO comes from various countries, a section on who pays for NATO, how much they're supposed to pay, and representing it in a nice graph would be a great addition to the article. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Currently, America politics has became incredibly hash to continued support of NATO. Here is a CNNMoney link to start from, which considering that it's a more liberal news source and it's not painting nice numbers, the alt-right show even worse reaction to the dues percentage. Either start a funding section, or go for a criticism section. This article is failing to address the current climate towards NATO. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Member states of NATO... Not clearly pointed to, to know the data is there. Main article needs to better suggest the Military expenditures are listed there. Also, recent news on relations and arguments about expenditures (this week Trump attacking Germany's percentage) shows this is of importance. If this is being addressed on another article, it needs to better be pointed out. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In the Members Section the first paragraph has a line, toward the end, that states "Twelve of these twenty-eight are original members who joined in 1949, while the other sixteen joined in one of seven enlargement rounds." While in the first sentence the recent addition of Montenegro is acknowledged by stating there are twenty-nine members, this sentence was not updated.
Fixed it for you, thanks for bringing it to our attention! Jurryaany (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on 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.
I see a new "Criticism and controversy" section has been tacked onto the end of the article today. I think it is hard for editors to keep this article neutral with a section like this, since it attracts opinions from all sides, and then we get into the trouble of "false balancing" different opinions on whether NATO was right or wrong to bomb Libya, Serbia, etc. This said, the text that was added today is sourced, and I'm not even sure the section heading "Criticism and controversy" is right. It's just about the issue of funding, which was previous discussed above. My initial thought is that maybe it should move to Member states of NATO#Military expenditures, but what do other editors think?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)