Talk:NATO

Sorry if this kills the article but why is Venezuela on the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation, it's to the south atlantic and has never had membership of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincanmansiimon (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of collateral damages and civilian deaths

By making no mention of the amount of collateral damage and the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO involvment, this article gives the false impression that NATO is actually running "clean" wars and that there is no reason to doubt the logic behind their interventions. There is no reason NOT TO publish such information in the context of such a collective, in fact, that's the whole point of having Wikipedia. Obiwanceleri (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How many wars don't have collateral damage? What makes NATO so special? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

also, the mandate of nato in libya is to enforce a no-fly zone. i don't see any ghadafi aeroplanes and yet look nato bombarding randomly regardless of a finished mission. international court of justice should get their sleeves rolled up. 79.125.224.181 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

That new country needs to be added to the map of NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticknuke007 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No section on the treaty's terms

Although some parts of the NATO treaty have been expounded upon in the Beginning section, these are brief and many changes have been made since. A seperate section on the actual treaty, its articles and sections is needed. Not many references would be needed, just some kind of summary of the key articles. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm Temperamental1 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NATO to Lead on Libya Ties, Panetta Says NYT resource

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/world/panetta-says-ties-with-libya-depend-on-allies.html 1 day ago ... Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said he would take cues from NATO allies in deciding on a future security relationship with Libya. October 26, 2011 by ELISABETH BUMILLER and MARTIN FACKLER 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

North Atlantic?

I understand most people here have no power to change this but does anyone know why they still use the obviously outdated monoker "North Atlantic" Treaty Organiztion? Many member states do not have coastlines on the North Atlantic and some are even land locked?216.19.236.129 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The intention was never to be a club of coastal states; rather a club of states with particular political alignment, and which happened to be on either side of the Atlantic. It's no biggie. The European Union includes components that are in the Caribbean and even the Indian Ocean; the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire; and so on. bobrayner (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The name refers to the fact that these countries have signed the North Atlantic Treaty, which is NATO's foundational document. Italy was a founding member of NATO and it has no territory on or near the North Atlantic. Their unifying purpose was a common ideology, not geography.Mediatech492 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cooperation with non-member states

Partnership for Peace (PfP)			Map of NATO Partnerships
Commonwealth of Independent States	Other Cold War socialist economies	Militarily neutral Cold War capitalist economies
Armenia	Yugoslavia	Austria
Azerbaijan	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Finland
Belarus	Macedonia	Ireland
Kazakhstan	Montenegro	Malta
Kyrgyzstan	Serbia	Sweden
Moldova	Soviet Union	Switzerland
Russia	Georgia
Tajikistan	Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan	Ukraine
Non-PfP agreements
Mediterranean Dialogue	Istanbul Cooperation Initiative	Contact countries
Algeria	Bahrain	Australia
Egypt	Qatar	Japan
Israel	Kuwait	New Zealand	NATO member states
Jordan	United Arab Emirates	South Korea	Partnership for Peace
Mauritania			Mediterranean Dialogue
Morocco			Istanbul Cooperation Initiative
Tunisia			Contact countries

I think this table needs some rework. I have just added ICI countries to the mix and the end result is an even wider table. So, to fix this I have restructured the table a bit but am not sure if this really is an improvement. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I propose the above table as a replacement since colors can be better expressed in this form (I am not too happy with the MD color btw). The legend can even be removed or simplified. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice approach, but I have a couple of minor concerns:

• I think the MD colour is too dark to be used as background for text.
• I think the difference between MD and ICI colours is not clear enough on the map.
• Unfortunately, colours which look good on a map may not be the same colours that are easy on the eye as a background for text in a table. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. I am not necessarily happy with the color pallet, it can be swapped for different colors. The main idea here is the colorful table idea. :)

• I am not sure which colors should be used. ICI and MD are more or less the same thing so I think it would be better if they had similar colors
• Map could be made larger with scroll bars or a hide/show structure. It is impossible to see ICI members unless really closely zoomed
• I think PfP could also be colored maybe. I have added this.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A slightly more radical suggestion: Instead of having a key below the map and a table of countries to the left of the map, could we just list countries in the key below the map? I think this is simpler, and avoids the awkward table (which is hard to read if coloured, and hard to relate to the map if not coloured). A simple comma-separated list after each colour chip is sufficient, I think - we don't need a formal array with rows and columns &c. No? bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarity error in the table under NATO#Euro-Atlantic Partnership

Other Cold War socialist economies listing members of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a Single-party state Marxism–Leninism government. To state socialism is overly vague, as many European countries at the time had socialism but not single-party or marxist-leninism. 99.19.45.48 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)