Talk:NATO/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

small update suggested re: NATO Parliamentary Assembly section

{{editsemiprotected}} in Section 4.1, it states that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is currently presided by Jose Lello. This is no longer the case -- it is now presided by U.S. Congressman John Tanner from Tennessee. see http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=345

therefore please change "Jose Lello" to "U.S. Congressman John Tanner from Tennessee" PetitSablon (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's done..! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tlping request since it is already handled. BejinhanTalk 13:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

clarification of citation

Could someone please fix the following?: I lazily offered a citation for the Georgia / Ukraine membership above, and Buckshot06 thoughtfully added it; but I should have included a properly cited version, which would be the following (I guess you have to look at the source to see it correctly?):

Fizzspethwerk (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor Editorial Change Request

In the paragraph describing the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency, it is mentioned that it has been formed by combining the former NACOSA and SHAPE Technical Centre.

In fact it should read NACISA (NATO Communication and Information Systems Agency)

Dr. Levent Mollamustafaoglu 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molla61 (talk • contribs)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For my part, Oneiros, go ahead - would be useful. Cheers and best wishes for the holiday season. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. The bot should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

End of NATO

Since the article discusses enlargement, it should discuss the possible demise. Will the war in Afghanistan bring down NATO?

NATO's demise has been routinely predicted for over 50 years, since the alliance was formed. It was predicted when the French pulled out, multiple times when U.S. lack of interest seemed to threaten continued commitment in Europe, and at the end of the Cold War. When there is an active policy discussion that seems to indicate that dissolution of the alliance is a possibility, then that should be included - NOT just for one news article. We should also be working to better reflect the earlier Cold War debates on dissolution of the alliance. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Map

• 
• 

I think we should use the left map and no more the right map. The orthographic projection has become standard on Wikipedia for several reasons: It does not distort as is done most extremely by the Mercator projection currently used. Moreover, it provides a proper impression about the location, neighborhoods, and distance. At last shows the entire NATO territory and does not need to cut away the most northern regions. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea too TomEasy but the countries must be accurate, up to date, and correct. As soon as you get a version that has all the current members coloured, for my part, please insert it. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where is the left map inaccurate, out of date, or incorrect? Which current members are not colored? Tomeasy _{T C} 08:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake - didn't look closely. Add it, I say. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to write here properly but Kalingrad (Russia) is not part of NATO but is coloured (colored) in green on the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.130.4 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think an orthographic projection is inappropriate for a multinational entity of this size - it makes it hard to distinguish the member states as they are squished round the side and distorted. -- Love, Smurfy 22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind which map is used, as long as it is accurate. As pointed out by 83.254.130.4, Kaliningrad is shaded on the orthographic map. Can the author of this image please fix this? Hayden120 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Kaliningrad needs to be fixed first. I hope this will be done soon. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this error has been rectified. Any more errors to report, any more comments? Tomeasy _{T C} 08:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Smurfy, it's arguable that the countries are more accurately presented than they ever have been. They are only distorted if one views them from a Mercator projection point of view. The projection given replicates the real shape of the earth more accurately. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Map errors!

The new orthographic projection NATO map does not show Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lituathia as part of NATO. What was wrong with the old map, anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.181.180 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is followed up in the thread below. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Malta

In File:EU_and_NATO.svg, showing the relation between NATO and EU, Malta (in EU, not in NATO) appears to be missing. This was what I thought until I zoomed in maximum and discovered that, yes there are some few pixels on my screen at the expected position. To few, however, to clarify exactly what color this nation is given in the map. For practical reasons I propose to increase the actual size of Malta in the map, same as for Monaco, so that it is both possible to find it without zooming in, and also to see what color it has. While at it, maybe also do the same thing for the Vatican city, which I assume is not a member of Nato although Italy is. --KYN (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked it up and, indeed, the svg contains Malta. Now, guess what its color is: green! that makes no sense. I will see if I can fix it in a reasonable way and upload. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I addressed these issues and some more (see edit summary on the file). Tomeasy _{T C} 22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The current image is better, both Malta and Vatical city can be identified. However, for the case of Malta it is still difficult to see if the color refers to EU only or both NATO and EU since the colors are perceptually close. I'm using a 15" laptop and on this screen (and with my eyes) it is not possible to see which color it is for Malta. Suggestions: either change the colors to something that works better, or represent Malta as sufficiently large "dot" (same as already been done for Monaco and Vatical City) --KYN (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the link above, you reach the file page, where you see an enlarged version of the image. If you read the line just below the image it says: "EU_and_NATO.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 897 × 691 pixels, file size: 260 KB) | This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px." Now, click the 2000px version and you will find that there is no problem to identify Malta and its color on that file. You can for instance drag that version to your desktop and zoom in with a fewer of your choice. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Russia is included in the NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.218.96 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

??? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

US to leave NATO membership?

Kind of interesting if the US would consider getting out of NATO to set better relations with Russia http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5810708/nato-with-or-without-the-us.thtml

Probably might be a good idea considering the NATO has gotten so big from George Bush jr with all the hate going tot he US to blame for its police state affairs overseas, maybe its time to get out while you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

French departure from NATO integrated military command

Paragraph 2 mentions the development of the the French nuclear deterrent and the departure of France from NATO's military command, in the context of doubts about the ability of the organisation to defend itself against the Warsaw Pact. My understanding is that there were a number of reasons for both developments above, and that the background was a complicated one. Should this sentence be changed to reflect the complex nature of the French withdrawal/development of an independent deterrent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.178.18 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi 98.85.178.18, thanks for your thoughts. Paragraph Two is an intro paragraph and should not get too much into the detail. Do you believe the material in the history section under it adequately explains the complex nature of the developments? If not, what sort of changes would you suggest? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Error in Map : French Guyana Missing

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord
(NATO / OTAN)

NATO countries shown in green.

Does not show French Guyana, which is part of France. It should be colored green. Can someone do it? Daniel32708 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I also added a little border for Kosovo while I was at it, if anyone wants to open that can o' worms here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! Daniel32708 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If French Guyana is included, then why not Réunion, Hawaii and Guam? Apcbg (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the orthographic projection isn't perfect for showing places on both sides of the globe. However, most of the time when you highlight the United States, you leave out the territories, so I don't think Puerto Rico need be included, for example, even though it could be on the orthographic display.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outer regions of member states do not fall under the defense provisions of NATO. See article V of the North Atlantic Treaty: "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." It was explicitly formulated like that to avoid the US being mired in Europe's colonial wars. Being so, NATO was also not involved in the Falklands War. Sijo Ripa (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Sijo. This was the point I was thinking of making. The exception is French Algeria, which was for a limited period under the Treaty's provisions. I suggest we take a look at the actual wording of the treaty before any more countries are added. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Relevant article is Article 6 (1):

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.

Thus is it possible to put a green line along the tropic of cancer?

Cheers, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely, Article 5 is most important for the Alliance. However, the Washington Treaty is by no means confined to Article 5. Articles 2, 3 and 4 are highly relevant too; as a matter of fact most of NATO's activities are based on these articles, which have no geographic limitations. Therefore, it would seem unjustified to exclude from a NATO map proper parts of NATO member states. Apcbg (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in "NATO missile defence"

Off the top of my head, I don't know NATO's stance on American English versus British English, but there is a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defence that should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_missile_defense instead. I will edit the former page to redirect to the latter, but I would recommend that the link itself be edited. ("Why don't you register and do it, yourself?" "Fight The Man, etc etc.") --171.66.137.66 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rawr, beat me to it. ...Thank you! --Genkracken (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Secretaries Generals

Deputy Secretaries Generals are here listed as full-term S.G. during the periods of vacancy (Balanzino in 1994 and 1995, Minuto-Rizzo in 2003-2004), but the link reported shows that NATO itself considers them only as acting secretaries, and doesn't list them together with the "proper" secretaries generals. I think they should be removed from the list. -- 79.31.243.40 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo has the intention to join NATO

Please give Kosovo the right colour in the map under the section "Membership", because Kosovo has the intention to join NATO. Here a source from a meeting between Macedonia-Kosovo officials http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/4665 Habel (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Which color would you give it? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A Note On Spelling

Just wanted to note that the word you have used, "defence", should be spelled defense. I thought it might have been spelled differently in British English so if it is "defence" where you are, just ignore this.

Thank you for your time.

Defence is the British spelling. I imagine that no particular spelling takes precedent in an article on NATO so the article would keep which ever spelling was used first.--79.44.235.229 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NATO collective defense coverage?

As discussed here the following is covered: "the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. So, it seems that OUTSIDE of the coverage are: Pacific ocean (Guam, New Caledonia, Hawaii, etc.), Indian ocean (Reunion, Diego Garcia, etc.), Atlantic ocean south of the Tropic of Cancer (Caribbean, Falklands, etc.), Antarctic claims. It seems also that INSIDE of the coverage are: Gibraltar, Faroe islands, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Azores, Madeira, Bermuda, Saint Pierre and Miquelon?

But what about: Greenland (maybe considered NA/Europe, but it is partly north of the Arctic circle), Svalbard (maybe considered Europe, but it is north of the Arctic circle), Jan Mayen (maybe considered Europe, but it is north of the Arctic circle), Akrotiri and Dhekelia (maybe considered Mediterranean and thus Atlantic north, but it is in the asian part of the Mediterranean), Plazas de soberanía (maybe considered Mediterranean and thus Atlantic north, but it is in the african part of the Mediterranean) including Ceuta (Africa, but on the Mediterranean coast) and Melilla (Africa, but on the Mediterranean coast)? This question seems relevant, espicialy in the Svalbard, Plazas de soberanía, Ceuta, Melilla cases, where the possibility for disputes with non-NATO states exist. Alinor (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Euro-Atlantic Partnership

Somewhere the text refers to 49 participants, while it has been said that they are 28 + 22. I suggest that correction be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.158.86 (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Member map

I was surprised to find French Guiana coloured as a member, but not Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. Are there Any specific reasons for this? If not, I would suggest to remove French Guiana, as it does not fall within article 5... L.tak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

French Guyana should indeed be removed, or at least be coloured differently. To avoid confusion an explanatory note should be added. Sijo Ripa (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I added French Guiana back in April after some discussion here. If you want it gone just revert the most recent edit on the file page on the commons. I'm not sure if French Guiana should be included, but it is part of France in a way that the Antilles or Aruba aren't part of the Netherlands.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Military units and formations of NATO

I moved much of the last part of the article, which was just a long list of NATO offices and taskforces, onto a separate article, Military units and formations of NATO. Hopefully the info can be cleaned up and made into usable paragraphs for this article, but I otherwise don't see much there that needs to be highlighted on this page. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Enlargement map questions

this map, if you were confused

The map of NATO's potential enlargement that I try to maintain is a touchy subject, but hopefully this will be pretty straightforward. With Bosnia getting a MAP, it meant that the only "Intensified Dialogue country" (in light green) turned light blue. Today, a new user removed "Intensified Dialogue" from the legend, since its no longer used on the map. I see a few choices here, and I'd like some advice. First, Ukraine and Georgia are also in Intensified Dialogue, but they are dark green for "Promised Invitation", a level I came up with to describe their situation two years ago. So which should they be listed as, and which shade should that use?

Secondly, I've also considered that we could use light green (or another color, maybe yellow) for countries with Individual Partnership Action Plans. That would be Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Serbia. Azerbaijan and Moldova are currently listed as undecided, but that's also a bit of a nebulous category, and those probably could just be red anyways. But maybe that's too much info on this map? Thoughts?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also considering a better term for the red countries. "Membership not goal" isn't great, but it was short enough to fit on the captions. Perhaps "Not under discussion", "Unaffiliated", or "Associated with other programs". Maybe list them as "Partnership for Peace" or just "Other"?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been made abundantly clear that NATO membership is not a current goal for Ukraine. Implying otherwise is misleading, regardless of NATO's "official status" on Ukraine. The map is to demonstrate each country's own intent, not NATO's desires, and right now both the leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian public are against NATO membership. LokiiT (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Showing "intent" is not how I'd phrase it. The map shows the status of a given country in relation to the enlargement process. Ukraine at least remains in the Intensified Dialogue category. I'm not sure if it can withdraw from ID, or how it would do that if it wanted to. But that brings us back to changing the term "Membership not a goal", since as you point out, membership might not be a (current) goal while a country is still part of a process.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a category called "membership not a goal", and we have a country whose stated numerous times that membership is not a goal, yet this country is not coloured red. See the problem? LokiiT (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

new alternative

I just posted the alternative version I made last month, so let me know what people think. I'm intentionally getting away from what I felt was ambiguous or subject to political change with this version. The name, "NATO affiliations in Europe", reflects that. The color red is also removed, which I felt had a certain Cold War association, and I'm just not sure it helped. Also gone is color tan and the "Undeclared intent" category, and I've taken the opportunity to add in gray the Middle Eastern countries in the lower left, though not the sliver of Morocco, which I felt was just too small and distracting from the map. Opinions on this version?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As I see it, the upper map has some original research issues. It is certainly fine to color the members dark blue, and MAP countries in light blue. These lists are official, and not fabricated by Wikipedians.

Now, if "intensified dialogue" is another NATO program, for countries not yet admitted to MAP, and Ukraine and Georgia are part of this official program, then they should be colored in light green. In this case it would be possible to find something about "intesified dialogue" and the associated countries on the NATO website, I guess. If, however, "intensified dialogue" is just a prescriptive name, given by Wikipedians to summarize the quality of bilateral relations between the NATO and the respective countries, then this category should be removed.

The dark green category, in any case, is subjective and should be removed. I would guess that the rational behind the dark green listing is a statement made by de Hoop Scheffer amidst the Bucarest summit. This would not be enough, I think, to justify a color-coded listing. It may well be possible to cite other NATO voices, before or after this event, which call for the opposite.

The red and gray categories should simply be deleted, and all associated countries be shown in the same color (e.g., gray) without explaining what this means. We are not here to fantasize about the intent of countries that are not actually taking part in any NATO program. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To the lower map:

If all these categories apply to official NATO programs, which seems to be the case, then this map is a pretty good shot. If you are able, you could put original references to these programs. The best would be to have references to the NATO cite.

The coloring might still be improved. The orange/yellow still appears to be in stark opposition with the blue, but this is perhaps the last thing to do. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! Sorry I must have caused an edit conflict there. If you have thoughts on the colors, they're very easy to change. I know Intensified Dialogue is a program that NATO has used with four countries so far, but I couldn't tell you what it specifically entails.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize; edit conflicts are beyond our control. I know, it's easy to change colors. I edit maps myself. However, I think this is secondary. More worthwhile would be to add references to the programs underlying the color coding. Perhaps I will do it one day :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have installed the new map, which makes only use of existing, verifiable programs and does not speculate on intentions of countries. I have also wiki-linked to articles or sub-sections that specify the category. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

third map

I saw some errors in the new map (but have no suitable SVG editor) and made a third version with the corrections: Serbia has no IPAP (or I can't find a source for it); Cyrpus and Kosovo are not in PfP; Malta is in PfP; the rest of the european OSCE members are shown. Otherwise I generaly agree with your decision here to change the initial map (with declared/undeclared intention to join NATO) with the new map (showing only official NATO PfP/IPAP/ID/MAP affiliations) - intentions could be described in the sections for each country on the Enlargement of NATO page. Alinor (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'd based my map off the info on the Enlargement of NATO page, but I guess it needed to be fixed there too. I updated the SVG map accordingly. It does actually show Malta, but its just a really really tiny dot. So we can use which ever. I was thinking using the SVG here and the PNG on Enlargement, mostly because there's the larger world map right below the Membership section here.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I know, the new president of Ukraine applied that Ukraine won't join NATO, means intensified dialogue doesn't include Ukraine anymore. Some body should ask why don't NATO make agreement with partly recognized countries, like Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and others.118.71.144.115 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 118.71.144.115 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Does anyone here have the guts to tell me there is no criticism of NATO? Because I am somehow failing to find the appropriate section within the article. I guess closing articles is legitimate only if thereby ensuring objective coverage, which the absence of a criticisms-section is a blatant parody of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

(1) publishing a chronological comparative graph showing how blatantly misproportionate is the USA military power in the alliance, and (2) including a few quotations about how the USA have discouraged and undermined an authentic European self-defense force. These two steps would add a bit of "natural" and "factual" criticism.

We could also argue how much democratic or undemocratic (or just failed states) are some of the new courted NATO candidates (eg, Georgia) and how much compatible their democratic credentials are with the values NAto purports to defend... in fact, the democratic values that should be officially defended against invaders have been already violated in NATO history and pratice, as Gladio case proves beyond any doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_Gladio ... the alliance was NOT entirely directed by the democratically elected governments.....it involved forces that answered only to the United States of America while acting on European soil; via such Stay-behind forces NATO operated even in countries officially neutral. uhm, criminal and illegal activities formally speaking; always for a wonderful cause, mind you - only that the voting populations that were protected were "too dumb" to have a right to know. the USA KNEW BETTER.

Come on boys, if Gladio had been a Soviet Union initiative, we would still read and hear over n over and over ad nauseam how the Empire of Evil contaminated with dormant terrorist cells its vassal countries - it would be on Wikipedia Warsaw Pact page, on the NYP archives, and repeated all the time during every official speech for every adniversary of any cold war memorial.:P

Another note should go on how much really popular and supported is NATO membership in the member countries....: "if there were refererenda on NATO membership, would people of this given country vote to stay in the organization or not"? I just saw a poll about Afghans voting for NATO staying in their country, but some space should be given on the fact that support for the ALLIANCE is all but undisputed in the member countries themselves,..... I mean boys, if we go to democratic vote, you defenders of European democracies risk to be democratically dissolved (yes there are polls about this and CIA knows, several wikileaks documents talk about it).

We may find some famed quotations to uphold that some countries (eg, Italy) have excluded the referenda on foreign policy at constitutional level itself, exactly to prevent the sovereign people from interferring with their voting on such delicate topics as NATO membership (AKA protecting NATO from democracy).

A proposed source on good and evil in the Holy Alliance. http://www.deutscher-friedensrat.de/pdf/NATOMilitaryStructure.pdf and a shiny quote from it.

"On the German airbase Büchel US special forces with 50 soldiers guard the nuclear bombs.
 In case the order comes from Washington they would release the safety catch and fix them
 under the German Tornado-plane, which the German pilot then has to fly to the designated
 target. That these nuclear bombs still has to ready for the German Tornados from the
 33rd Air Squadron makes no sense, because against whom can they be used?  The Tornado has
 a range of 1853 km. In this range are only NATO allies."

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.76 (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

cosmos, where is it located ????

cosmos, where is it located ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.137.101 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

america

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• [TYPE HERE]

--Baftir (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) hello

Declined — no requested fix specified, coords appear to be correct. Please repost with a specific request, removing the "tlc|" from the {{geodata-check}} tag, if you still think something needs to be corrected. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

image structures of NATO in Commons

I signal the file :

Military structures of NATO in 2006.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27a%C3%A9roplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.143.36.58 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.106.250.80, 24 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

"defence" is supposed to be spelled "defense" 99.106.250.80 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the guidelines on spelling for Wikipedia. Because NATO was initiated and most affiliated with the British, a Oxford-British spelling is used in this article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dmcamens, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Bush era economic crisis" to "2008 global economic crisis". Associating a former U.S. president with a crisis is misleading and potentially damaging to his reputation. This article on NATO should be completely unbiased and especially should not disparage a former U.S. president.

Dmcamens (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

missions/interventions/operations

Maybe past and present NATO missions should be separated in their own section - currently some are mentioned in the history section. Something like Overseas interventions of the European Union. Alinor (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

NATO eBookshop

NATO (ww.nato.int) has an online service which gives you free access to NATO publications and multimedia products (DVD,video,animations) in both electronic and print format.

You will also find an online catalogue of all NATO publications, and you can subscribe to receive targeted emails on specific NATO topics of interest to you or that are published in the language of your choice.

The e-bookshop is part of the NATO website and can be found at www.nato-bookshop.org

Maybe this info could be added at the bottom of the NATO page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For completing Further reading:

General history:

Lothar Schröter: Die NATO im Kalten Krieg. Die Geschichte des Nordatlantikpaktes bis zur Auflösung des Warschauer Vertrages. Homilius, Berlin 2009; Band I. 1949–1975. Eine Chronik, ISBN 978-3-89706-914-5, Band II. 1976–1991. Eine Chronik, ISBN 978-3-89706-915-2.

This is a chronicle of 1196 pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.152.178 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

European Geographical Perspective

There is a lack of an explicit European geographical perspective in the wikipedia NATO article. I therefore propose the following draft section to be inserted together with completion of references:

"NATO is and has always had a genuine European perspective and origin. It has historically operated on the old European military theatre aiming to safeguard the western European territories from potential military threats from the Soviet Union. NATOs political (Brussels, Belgium) and military headquarters (Rocquencourt, France and Casteau, Belgium) have always been located in Europe.

To defend European territory NATO is primarily and practically an alliance inbetween European states to defend their respective territories: Twentyfive (25) out of the twentyeight (28) NATO countries are entirely located in Europe. Only two (2) members (United States and Canada) are located outside of Europe and only one (1) NATO member (Turkey) is located partly in Europe and partly in Asia.

Twentyone (21) out of those twentyfive (25) entirely European NATO members are States within the political European Union, which after the Lisbon Treaty have overtaken the military competencies of the former Western European Union which with its Brussels Treaty from 1948 was the European core predecessor of NATO and traces back to the 1947 postwar European Dunkirk Treaty between France and the UK. The internal military structure of the EU is explained in the wikipedia article Military of the European Union. Beside those twentyone (21) NATO members within the European Union, six (6) EU States are non-aligned to NATO, summing up to the twentyseven (27) States of the European Union.

The only two (2) Non-European members of NATO (United States and Canada) have since 1940 had their own Permanent Joint Board on Defence to provide policy-level consultation on bilateral defence matters in North America, outside of NATO." 83.176.226.32 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Realmadrid2727, 21 March 2011

Done The following date in the "Arms embargo against Libya" needs to be changed from 20 March 2010 to 20 March 2011, the embargo was initiated in 2011 and not 2010, the source cited shows this. Realmadrid2727 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Military action section

With the conflict in Libya about to necessitate the creation of a new subsection under History, I decided to do a little organization, and split out the subsections about the Balkins, Afghanistan, Libya and other conflicts into a section right after History named "Military actions". Does that make sense to people? The History section can be for general discussion, like "Post Cold War", while details about recent interventions can go under this heading.

Also, a second question about maps: We have seven of them, and I bet some could be combined. Maybe with an animation? And I'm hesitant to keep the NATO/CSTO since I also don't want to portray those as opposing forces with the map of countries of each.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Structures section

In the "Structures" section of the article it states that the new NATO Headquarters will be completed in 2012. However according to the source cited below, it is really due to be completed in Fall of 2015. http://wireupdate.com/wires/12377/world-war-ii-bomb-found-at-construction-site-of-new-nato-headquarters/

05:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrgood1 (talk • contribs)

Nixon was not President of the Soviet Union

Under the picture right beneath the heading "Détente and escalation", the caption says that Richard Nixon was President of the Soviet Union, which he of course was not. Reportersnotebook (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. JOJ ^Hutton 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Allied Command Transformation

In the Article it says, under Military Structures

"NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands both commanded by a senior US officer assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO."

This is clearly wrong as one of the two Strategic Commands (Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia) is commanded by a senior European officer, not US officer. 83.176.225.95 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The European Allies

For a clearer understanding of NATO it should be inserted in text with a NATO-EEA-EU map that all NATO nations outside of North America are either States (21) or Applicants (4) of the political and economical European Union, except NATO member Norway who instead politically adopts all EU legislation through the EEA, European Economic Area. This is relevant to the Wikipedia NATO Article due to the facts, which too should be mentioned, that the European Military predecessor of NATO (Western Union Defence Organization) was the defense arm of the European Political predecessor of NATO (Western European Union) which after the Treaty of Lisbon transferred its military functions to the European Union whose legislation all NATO members outside of North America are either adopting as EU or EEA Members, or wants to adopt as EU Applicants. NATO is therefore dependent on the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. 83.176.225.95 (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Error?

My computer marks "defence" as misspelled, and suggests that it be spelled "defense." However, Dictionary.com considers it to be a real word.

No, that's not an error, its just British. NATO, on its websites and in publications, and in mission names like "Active Endeavour", uses British spelling, so the decision was made a while back over with Wikiproject NATO that pages should, per WP:ENGVAR, use a consistent style, and that style would be British, rather than American spelling. So "defence", except where referring a title like the "Secretary of Defense". That said, its the Treaty Organization, not "Organisation".-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gates speech has other quotes of potential relevance to the article

The recent Gates speech has quotes of potential relevance to the article (transcript using the same reference from the edit request above):

I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.

Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. The relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited (and dwindling) resources are allocated and for what priorities. For example, though some smaller NATO members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.

"In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.

67.101.7.143 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Opperation Allied Force location

Third paragraph states "After the fall ... and later Serbia in 1999". This should be changed to Yugoslavia. Serbia was not independent at that time, but part of Yugoslavia along with Montenegro. Targets in Montenegro were also attacked (eg. airport near Podgorica, fuel stores, communication..). Also, Montenegro theritory was activly used for defence. Ns.code (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

NATO actions in Libya

ARITCLE NEEDS UPDATING

I believe has now been demonstrated NATO is no longer an “organization (that) constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party” but has evolved to, as in the case with Libya, an offensive military organization used against what is perceived to be an oppressive government.

Would someone please include in the text (I don't know how)that the use of NATO military force in Libya is the first time NATO has been utilized to conduct a preemptive attack a nation (Libya) that has not threatened any NATO nation.

At this point, it is rather silly to describe NATO as an “organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party”.

ALSO Regarding NATO Operations in Libya.

Commander of NATO military forces: Admiral James G. Stavridis USN

It may also be important to let folks know the Commander of NATO is/has always been a US Flag Officer who is also the Commander of all US Forces in Europe. May folks are under the misinformed impression the US Forces has turned control of Operations in Libya over to a “Non-US entity” NATO. Only some control, less then most think has been moved.

The fact is, NATO is commanded by the Senior US Military Officer in Europe.

I feel someone should include and specifically the Command structure of OUP. Most would be surprised to find the first line “Non-US Officer” is further down the chain then they would think.

The chain of command is from Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James G. Stavridis (U.S. Navy),through his command structure down to acting operational commander for Libya Operations, Lt. General Charles Bouchard (Canadian Air Force. From the operational level, command is further delegated to the Commander of Allied Maritime Command Naples, Vice Admiral Rinaldo Veri (Italian Navy) for the naval operations and Commander of Allied Air Command Izmir, Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II U.S. Air Force Europe (USAFE) for air operations.[9]

Folks somehow have been told OUP is a non-US action…folks should know NATO military is a US Commanded Military orginization, supported by member nations, originally intended to provide a common defense in Europe but is still, mostly a US run, driven orginization.

Thank you

don't know how to sign this

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.4 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the section describing the command structure of NATO, there is already one, with the role of each strategic commands clearly identified: NATO#Military_structures

The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Giampaolo Di Paola of Italy, since 2008. [...] NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands commanded by a senior US officer[87] and a senior French officer[88] assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO.[...]The Military Committee in turn directs two principal NATO organizations: the Allied Command Operations responsible for the strategic, operational and tactical management of combat and combat support forces of the NATO members, and the Allied Command Transformation organization responsible for the induction of the new member states' forces into NATO, and NATO forces' research and training capability.[89]

And more informations about the location of the commands and a diagram can be found here Military_units_and_formations_of_NATO#Military_structures

Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gates comments regarding NATO

I understand WP:NOTNEWS, however should the comments from outgoing SECDEF Gates be included any where here, or in related articles? Here are the searches I found Google News 5K+, & 1K+. The level of notability based on these searches IMHO is enough for some form of inclusion, somewhere. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought...WP:NOTNEWS isn't an issue in this case, since he specifically noted he was speaking in his "last policy speech" as U.S. Defense Secretary. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the introduction, use the last two existing sentences to start a new paragraph, resulting in a final paragraph that consists of the following:

The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending. The United States alone accounts for 43% of the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy account for a further 15%. This reflects what Robert Gates, speaking in his "last policy speech" as U.S. Defense Secretary, characterizes as an unacceptable two-tiered alliance, with "members who specialize in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the 'hard' combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership — be they security guarantees or headquarters billets — but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.<ref>{{cite web| date= June 10, 2011| url= http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Activities/Activitiesoverview/tabid/1292/EventType/EventView/EventId/1070/EventDateID/1087/PageID/5141/Reflectionsonthestatusandfutureofthetransatlanticalliance.aspx | author= [[Robert Gates]]| title= Reflections on the status and future of the transatlantic alliance | publisher= [[Security & Defence Agenda]] | accessdate= 2011-06-13}}</ref>

Thanks in advance. 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: While Gates' comments probably should be in the article (along with any responses, briefly), that wording is rather non-neutral. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a quote, attributed as such and introduced in a relevant context. It isn't coming from a pundit or columnist, it is coming from an about-to-retire political leader who was offering "parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year old transatlantic security project", something he has been involved closely with for a number of years. In the same speech, he says he speaks "with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those greater interests and values that bind us together." Are you suggesting that I expand the request to include that quote as well, or is there some other issue? 67.101.7.143 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I believe that adding this to the introduction may put undue weight on it while it could go elsewhere in the article. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Resource: NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times Foreign Affairs July/August 2011.

NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times by Anders Fogh Rasmussen Foreign Affairs July/August 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Troop numbers

It would be informative to know the supplied or potentially available number of military personnel from each member country. -- Beland (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically all troops are to be used in the event of war. I could get those numbers for peace time I think. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Brussels HQ

There barely is any mention of the Brussels HQ, the heart of NATO while there are articles on SHAPE and ACO. I see this as a problem. There should be an article on the Brussels HQ I think. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 austerity

In June 2011 it was announced the organization would undergo austerity, closing four command bases in Europe and reducing staff from 13,700 to 8,800. A report cited only 5 of 28 member nations, Albania, Britain, France, Greece and the United States, respecting fiscal requirements. Canada withdrew from a key air surveillance program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 22:12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong intro

The intro is a bunch of nonsense. It is not a 'defensive' organisation, as in recent decades, almost all NATO actions are offensive. Could someone correct this totally obvious mistake right in the article's introduction?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nato: British Idea But Not Mentioned Directly?

President Obama at his speech to the combined Houses Of Commons & Lords on the 25th May 2011 stated that NATO was essentially a British idea yet I see no mention of that here...?Twobells (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 18:28:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone explain why 10 out of 14 deputy secretaries have been Italian? 188.220.186.57 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No Criticism of NATO section?

Is there any reason for this? Most articles have this section, especially an article on something like this. Wikipediarules2221 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is best integrated into the article than as a separate section. Do you have sourced criticism to add? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2011 (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)

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)

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)

The updated table and map I've created in the last week is now done. Its very wide, so I am concerned how it might appear in situations that don't have a widescreen option. However, I did take the suggestion and moved the Template:Legend colors into the headers themselves, to save space. I also recreated the map as a SVG, with new colors that matched the one above it, for some consistency. I was somewhat concerned that there isn't actually a legend for "NATO Members" in this new table, but I hope that is implied. If not, we might be able to add it in the header above the map. Any other concerns?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been working this week on a new setup for the table, in part based off of Bobrayner's suggestion above that we have the countries under the map. In order to do that, we need some crazy setup, and almost 100% of the horizontal space. The length of the list also led me to use Template:Collapsible list, which we also use in the infobox when listing NATO members. I also thought that this could replace the list in the "Independent Partnership Action Plan" section, and combine the map from the "Membership" section, since they're all next to each other on the page. Here's what I came up with:

Map of NATO partnerships globally	Map of NATO affiliations in Europe
Members of NATO   Membership Action Plan   Individual Partnership Action Plan   Partnership for Peace   Mediterranean Dialogue   Istanbul Cooperation Initiative   Contact countries Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States Bosnia and Herzegovina Macedonia Montenegro Armenia Azerbaijan Bosnia and Herzegovina Georgia Kazakhstan Moldova Montenegro Ukraine Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia and Herzegovina Finland Georgia Ireland Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Macedonia Malta Moldova Montenegro Russia Serbia Sweden Switzerland Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Algeria Egypt Israel Jordan Mauritania Morocco Tunisia Bahrain Kuwait Qatar United Arab Emirates Australia Japan New Zealand South Korea

I'd like suggestions before I try to fit it on the page. This map also removes the color for "Intensified Dialogue", which has always been a bit ambiguous. Thanks!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

One question I have for others is whether the maps should be flipped. The legend at the bottom (which could also be rearranged) has the global partnerships (Mediterranean, Istanbul, Contact countries) on the right side, but the global map that shows these is on the left. Is that confusing? I chose to instead put the Europe map on the right for appearances; the map's right edge looked better when it hit the table's right border. However I have an example of how this setup looks when flipped on my sandbox at User:Patrickneil/NATO. I also made a version where each legend has its own dropdown list, though the trouble with the show/hide link there should be obvious.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It does look much better flipped, at least for me, as my eye can follow the connections to the colours. CMD (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I implemented a setup with the Europe map on the left on this page. This also allows us to reduce the number of lists used in the page, so I've removed the lists in the IPAP and Contact countries subsections.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 06:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is nice but the image is two wide. I think the Europe portion should grow out below the world image. That way it would properly display on the side. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the space that the legends take up that pushes it to be so wide. I included both the World and European maps in part because we had the space for them above the legend. I think we could do an smaller option where the legend is hidden too, and have it expand horizontally when the reader clicks "show", if people prefer. I'd note however that the previous version of the map/table setup were also very wide, and didn't have room for text on the sides.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be a problem as well but the width of the whole thing remains to be a problem. :/ On computers with smaller screens and phones this would look bad. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:31, 17 February 2012 (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)

Missing Sections on Active Current Events

There is no section on alleged war crimes by NATO despite allegations by Libya and others. Also before the invasion of Libya, Libya was invited to join the Union of the Mediterranean. After the NATO invasion, does that mean that NATO is now a member of the Union of the Mediterranean?

Chemical Weapons

Chemical weapons are frowned upon in the North Atlantic. There is no section detailing heroic captures of chemical weapons by NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.190.164 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no criticism section attributed? There are many groups that Criticize NATO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.68.69 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally considered to not be a good idea: please see WP:CSECTION. However, feel free to propose neutrally-written material referenced to reliable sources on criticisms of NATO here, or you can register an account and add them yourself.Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Further reading?

The "Further reading" section here is woefully out of date, and I'm not sure we need it, particularly since we're now using a Bibliography with Harvard citations. The most recent item in the Further reading list is from 2008, but it includes books and journal entries from as early as 1987, 1972, and even 1969. Are these really still definitive volumes that we need to be singling out for special recommendation here? Even thought there are 26 items listed, several authors have multiple listings for their volumes, which makes me question the neutrality of their inclusion. Would anyone miss this section? If so, would anyone want to clean up and update it?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 05:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. If the books are useful, then chances are they'll be cited and thus be in the bibliography. CMD (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Libya 2011

The article suggests that the NATO role was limited to enforcing the no-fly zone - is this correct or was NATO also involved in co-ordinating the wider ground-attack missions performed by Western forces beyond the scope of enforcing a no-fly zone? Thom2002 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues that it's worth understanding:

• Enforcing the no-fly zone is about establishing air superiority, that includes reducing the capability of the OPFOR to develop their own Recognised Air Picture. One could reasonably assess that strike missions to take down air picture compilation and command and control networks fall within the category of enforcing a no-fly zone. The fact that these operations would also have a secondary effect of disabling the C2 network applied to land operations is a benefit.
• Some of the missions may have been co-ordinated by national assets not allocated to NATO.

ALR (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Resistance to NATO

Beginning Mid-December 2011, some protesters claiming alliance / origin with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The organizers were and are still calling for active resistance to NATO, due to what they consider irresponsible spending of tax money, and general political corruption. The creators of the central website organized with the NATO protests, natoprotest.org, accuse NATO of being "fine with US drone attacks in Yemen, which support one of the region’s most ruthless dictatorships, and the U.S. and NATO turn a blind eye to the brutality of the Bahraini dictatorship, essentially aiding and abetting these governments’ suppression of protest movements against corruption and dictatorship." In general natoprotest.org, along with other protest websites against NATO, accuse all NATO affiliated countries of corrupt, self-serving expenditures with "our tax dollars," war profiteering, starting frivolous wars, hiding government secrets from their citizens, and other activities they find irresponsible.

However, along with all the citizens who have not allied themselves with the protesters, many countries still continue to promote NATO and its actions, including former president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. Many news-media organizations give credit to NATO for the fall of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, along with other successful military ventures that have helped to control what is considered by NATO countries to be governments jeopardizing their citizens rights and safety. NATO still remains very supported by many. }}

The contributor, User:Bogo1983 has two warnings on talk page, but I wanted to put it up here if other editors find any of this valuable. I suspect we'll be seeing an uptick in commentary and vandalism in the next two weeks corresponding to the Chicago summit, and probably a link from the news section of the front page here.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This drafting is obviously very poor and biased. I have no problem in principle with a section on anti-NATO protests though, as there has been a significant history of such protests since NATO was founded. 'Resistance' is probably the wrong word as that would encompass military resistance as well as peaceful protest. Thom2002 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that material is pretty non-neutral. It's also a classic case of recentism. There are long running and big picture cricitisms of NATO and established campaigns against it which the article should cover, but there's no need to include coverage of individual protests. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We mention protests some in the history section, and maybe we can put a line or two in about the regular summits, and that they have seen coinciding protests. If we had a "History of NATO" article, I'd think we'd want a history of protests section there, but I do have some concerns with such a separate section on this page.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is something that's pretty typical of Criticism sections in general, and from a stylistic perspective one of the reasons that that they seem to be best avoided. I'd agree the above point about the value of a History of NATO section where it's credible to put mention of dispute, disagreement and hostility to both the idea of a transnational defence agreement and NATO in particular, particularly following the change in posture that was initiated by the Balkans conflicts of the early 90s.

The section falls into the usual trap of cherry picking specific primary objections, rather than any secondary analysis of what the objections or disagreement means in practice.

There is a related aspect around what the disagreement is about, as an example the specific points about Libyan interventions; was it because of NATO involvement, the tactics used, the individual national contributions or because it's seen as a proxy for nationalism and disagreement with a specific nations involvement in either NATO or the specific intervention?

ALR (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

British titles

Little kerfuffle going on here and on List of NATO Secretaries General as to the use of British peerage titles for the three UK Secretaries General. User:Tryde points to a WikiProject on peerage, WP:PEER, which though not policy, suggests that "Male life peers should be referred to as "the Lord Title" in full form" but also suggests that this "usage is by no means consistent, and the form considered most appropriate for a particular list should be used." I think that for international articles like these, the more informal part of the Secretaries' names is most appropriate, and would keep them consistent with the others who are just their first and last name. It's "Javier Solana", for example, not "Francisco Javier Solana de Madariaga". The closest Wiki policy I could find here was under MOS:HONORIFIC, and though Tryde correctly points out that its not entire applicable, it also suggests that keeping consistency is important. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page a peerage is not an honorific, it is a legal part of a peer's name. Lord Carrington is legally Peter Alexander Rupert, Baron Carrington - British peers legally don't have surnames. Lord Carrington has been part of British public life for almost 70 years under the name Lord Carrington - not as Peter Carington, a name he would be unrecognisable under. Lord Ismay and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen were ennobled later in life and were previously known as (Sir) Hastings Ismay and George Robertson. However, we should refer to them by the name they had during the time they served as secretary general. NATO's own website should be a good judge on how they were known during their tenure as secretaries general. In their biographies on the website they are referred to as Lord Carrington, Lord Ismay and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. If you search the website you get the following results:

• Hastings Ismay - 0 hits
• Lord Ismay - 24 hits
• Peter Carington - 0 hits
• Lord Carrington - 28 hits
• George Robertson - 2 hits (both hits were on his appointment as secretary general in August 1999, which was before he was made a peer - in one hit he is incorrectly referred to as "Lord George Robertson")
• Lord Robertson - 550 hits (Lord Robertson of Port Ellen - 16 hits)

I think this is a good indication of why we should use their titles in the list and in the article as a whole - this would also be in line with other lists and articles. If we should use the "of Port Ellen" part of his title may be discussed but full peerage titles are normally included in lists. As for "The Lord X" this is a formal style not used in everyday speech and in running text. However, it is the style normally used in lists. Tryde (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the titles aren't part of their full legal names, merely that if we aren't going to include the full "Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington" that keeping one part makes more sense than the other for this situation. Other articles do present different circumstances, and what's "normal" for one might not be for all. Search engines are also a poor arbitrator. I just want to present what's most easily understood by a reader, and feel we shouldn't let formality get in the way of consistency or quick comprehension.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to present what's most easily understood by a reader you should refer to Carrington as Lord Carrington as that is what he's been known as for seventy years. He is unrecognisable as Peter Carington and it would be plain wrong to call him that. This has nothing to do with formality - you may not like titles but that is how people are and were known and to rewrite history from your own ideological convictions is wrong. We should also assume that Wikipedia readers have at least a minimum of intelligence and would be familiar with the form "Lord X". Lord Byron is referred to as Lord Byron and not as George Byron, and so on. As for search engines being a poor arbitrator, this wasn't a google search but a search on NATO's own website. 550 hits for Lord Robertson, zero hits for Hastings Ismay and Peter Carington, that is pretty convincing evidence to me. Can we agree to use the titles in the list? Tryde (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is public opinion section,like in other articles? Please add

Please change it, adding following :
"== Public opinion ==",
According to German Marshall Fund "Transatlantic Trends 2012" polls in USA, Turkey, Russia, and 12 selected European countries only 45% of respondents in Poland agree that NATO is essential for their country defense. 29 % think that military intervention in Libya was right decision, attack on Iraq was approved also by only 26 %, with Afghanistan occupation by 27%. The USA domination was treated as good by 38%
Possible reasons of that answers may include still required tourist visas by Poles(when they don't need, or easily get on the border for most countries), despite previous claims and changes by USA government, which is the system based on self decision of embassy official, and even require Polish soldiers who fought in these countries to apply and go through this. Also Poles remember military pacts from WWII, when the countries like UK and France doesn't helped despite signed acts, after nazi invasion, with remembered leaving the Poland to CCCP(by Churchill and Roosvelt) after war.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Partners across the globe

Whether to change "Contact countries" in the participating countries section to "Partners across the globe" as shown here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/51288.htm --chinneeb-talk 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I based that map and table off what was here on Wikipedia, but the site you linked does list all the groups nicely, and we should always follow the source. This 2009 site uses both terms, saying these countries are "often referred to as 'other partners across the globe' or 'Contact Countries'" so they may be interchangeable. The whole category is somewhat vague, since it doesn't have the framework that the Mediterranean Dialogue or Partnership for Peace has, so I don't see a problem adding Iraq, Afghanistan, and Mongolia to the group. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Shall we go about changing it then, if no-one objects? --chinneeb-talk 07:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A global NATO has been proposed from a NATO meeting in Russia a few years ago, but as time has gone, I have no reference for this. At the time, I think the statement from the meeting has read: "Russia welcomes a global NATO" or something of this. Anyone, please? 95.34.150.109 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed this to include the "partners across the globe". Mongolia actually seems to have signed a two-year agreement called an "Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme" earlier this year, which is actually part of their new "partnership menu" mentioned here. Switzerland also seems to have this IPCP agreement too, and I believe NATO intends to have the other "global partners" get this sort of agreement too, though there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info out there on the topic.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia

The country which is referred to as Macedonia, is not Macedonia. The country is in fact called FYROM. Please make this not across the board. Vivaldi0 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Our content should reflect what sources say. Sources prefer "Macedonia". bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan War

According to The Guardian, Germany was part of the veto against the Turkey preparations: "France, Germany and Belgium today vetoed Nato from planning defence improvements for fellow alliance member Turkey ahead of any potential US-led war against Iraq." Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/10/iraq.france 88.115.93.18 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First NATO Operation

There is a mistake in this article which I tried to edit but only certain editors can for this article. The first operation for NATO was operation Anchor Guard in Turkey in 1990. Not Bosnia Herznogovia in 1992. See Great Decisions 2013 NATO: Crisis? What Crisis? Mark Webber p. 32 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middlemarch2256 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added some content about the early operations during Gulf War I. I think that the statement in the lead still stands, as 'intervention' implies action on non-NATO territory. Thom2002 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and KFOR

Yugoslavia didn't exist back then, This article is full of this conception It was Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.214.4 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was known as the "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (consisting of the states of Serbia and Montenegro) until the early 2000s--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia should be added to the "Global Partners" section, as this month, the cooperation agreement was signed and even before that, Colombia was part of the NATO ATP-56(B) which basically gives the NATO county members the right to re-fuel from Colombian Air Force tankers. Australia, Japan and South Korea are also part of the ATP-56(b) and are assigned as so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeafcr (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:NATO/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains over 20 unaddressed citation needed tags, and thus likely fails criterion 1b, which requires citations for statistics and challenged material. I will wait a week before closing this reassessment so editors can have the opportunity to fix these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, I added many of these citation needed tags last week, and can do some research to see what can be covered myself, but was hoping one of the more military-minded editors might have sources on hand.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did the referencing tonight, but if you feel up to reviewing other parts of the article, feel free!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice job! Give me some time to check the article to see if there are any more issues that need to be resolved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Kept. The issues I brought up have been addressed. I don't see anymore issues with the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Abolition

There is significant opposition to the continued existence of NATO now that the Cold War is over. I find it strange that the article makes no mention of that. Bomazi (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because the Alliance is a form of cooperation that makes sense regardless of the Cold War; just to mention that the only time Article 5 of Washington Treaty was invoked was after the Cold War, and that NATO's cooperation with countries outside its own area (e.g. in North Africa, Persian Gulf etc.) has expanded considerably only after the Cold War too. In any case, any claim of "significant opposition" should be well sourced. Apcbg (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Request : France withdrawal

Regarding France's withdrawal from NATO, that section is inacurate and misleading :

"He wanted to give France, in the event of an East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a larger NATO-Warsaw Pact war.[28]"

France did not specially want a separate peace, it wanted independence : the ability to make it's own decisions, amongst them the ability to defend itself with nuclear weapons, even without US approval or intervention.

A source detailing the Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreement : After France's withdrawal from the IMS, the Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreement defined the parameters of military cooperation between France and NATO. This agreement was a balancing act between the then Chief of Staff of the French Army General Ailleret, who was insisting on complete withdrawal of French troops from NATO's integrated military command, and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Lemnitzer, whose goal was to reduce the impact of the withdrawal of French troops, especially from the French Zone of Germany (FRG), because of the Soviet threat from the Eastern Europe. In terms of numbers, the French contribution in the FRG remained unchanged. Moreover, under the Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreement, French forces went from merely defensive to a counteroffensive role that was certainly more valuable for Allied defence. The Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreement was kept secret for almost 20 years and is still treated with great discretion in order to preserve the image of France's autonomy acquired by breaking with Atlantic integration.

british website here : http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/france-s-changing-role-in-nato

Removal of that sentence is necessary for neutrality i believe, it clearly implies otherwise that the French did it just to escape and make separate peace with the WP.

disclaimer : i'm french :)

2A01:E34:ECE8:A7E0:D1DD:E666:8282:7D8F (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)ereynard

Hi there, and welcome. This seems to be more than a simple edit request so I would first point out that you too can register an account and make any necessary changes here then. But I would say two things, namely the word "option" in that sentence should make clear that de Gaulle wasn't about to do anything, but wanted the option. Additionally, the French withdrawal at its current length probably risks undue emphasis. But if you feel we need more on the Ailleret-Lemnitzer agreements, by all means add it!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

nato

what is the purpose of nato? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.175.185 (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Change Request : Lithuania and Poland call Article 4 consultations

Top paragraph says article 4 has been invoked only 3 times. This is no longer true: http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/64476/lithuanian-polish-presidents-call-for-nato-treaty-article-4-consultations-201464476/. Probably worth starting a subsection about the current crisis in Ukraine, which is not a member, but borders four members. Also, the Russian invasion in Ukraine is the first military agression of a former soviet state by Russia. Three former soviets are now NATO members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.176.194 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 March 2014‎ (UTC)

I am unclear about whether one or more members invoked the Article 4 of the treaty over this busy weekend. User:Ctolsen just removed the text about the request and linked in their edit summary to a press conference where Anders Fogh Rasmussen specifically says no Article 4 requests were made, and that their consultations were of the regular daily sort. The Financial Times has an article that specifically says:

“ "In a bit of diplomatic signalling, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the alliance’s secretary-general, made clear to the assembled ambassadors at the start of the meeting that they were not gathering under Article 4 of the alliance’s self-defence treaty – a provision only invoked when alliance members feel they are under threat. Despite rumblings by Poland and Lithuania that Article 4 should be invoked, Mr Rasmussen reiterated the point in public remarks at the end of the nine hours of meetings: “No one has requested to activate Article 4 at this stage.” ”

On the other hand, I am seeing articles in The Wall Street Journal and EU Observer, yes right in the headline from The Lithuanian Tribune that the anon editor posted here, which do reference Poland and/or Lithuania requesting Article 4 consultations. Could it be that Rasmussen and those in charge want to deescalate the Ukraine crisis, and that includes denying that anyone requested the Article 4 meeting, which would specifically label Russia a threat, while Polish or Lithuanian politicians want to use the opportunity to seem like they are reacting forcefully? I'm hesitant to add this info right in the introduction while this conflict in sources persists.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics? The articles cited ("The Lithuanian and Polish presidents are calling for NATO consultations under Article 4", "Poland will seek consultation with NATO allies under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty", "two Nato members, Lithuania and Poland, had called for the NAC meeting citing article 4 of the Nato treaty") aren't necessarily inconsistent with Rasmussen's quote. They well could have called for a meeting under Article 4, but been convinced against this course of action before the meeting was scheduled. Do we have any sources from AFTER the meeting was scheduled that quote Polish/Lithuanian authorities describing this meeting as taking place under Article 4? TDL (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's confirmed and official now. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_107711.htm. I updated the article accordingly. agnus (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This from yesterday seems to confirm my hunch: "No one has requested to activate Article 4 at this stage. But obviously we have ongoing consultations." The formal request for an Article 4 meeting must have come after that statement, even though the countries were pushing for it earlier. TDL (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This article writes that "[Article 4] was also invoked by Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in March 2014 in response to the 2014 Crimean crisis.". Shouldn't we change the last sentence accordingly, since it only states that Poland invoked it? Here, I am assuming that the citations of that statement are reliable. Luot (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this may stem from a difference between saying that a politician, individually or as the representative of a country, has "called on NATO to invoke Article 4" and the actual process that takes place in meetings in Brussels. The source here is from NATO itself, which has multiple articles about this recent and they all specifically mention the meetings being at "Poland's request" without any other nations. Perhaps the other article needs to be updated?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, that Article 4 was invoked not only by Poland, but by Poland and Lithuania.

Clarifying the Introduction: Member State spending

The last sentence in the first paragraph says "Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to 2% of GDP." This is misleading, as a reader unfamiliar with NATO is likely to proceed under the assumption that many, if not all, NATO member states meet this supposed amount. I propose the following change: the sentence should be amended, and ought to say "Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to 2% of GDP, a figure only met by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and Greece." The 'only' could be omitted if it is too much of a weasel word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstouttt (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

French departure from NATO

Attributing the French departure from NATO as based on "doubts" about NATO's ability to defend against the Warsaw Pact nations (as was done in the second paragraph of the introductory section) is simplistic, and just plain wrong. France still maintained a military alliance with other western states, for the purpose of opposing a Soviet invasion. And, as noted elsewhere in this page, there were agreements between the US and France for France's forces to be put under NATO control in the event of a Soviet Attack. Rather, the move by de Gualle was an ideological action, mostly based on Charles de Gualle's vision of France as a power, his perception of French identity, and his perception of her envisioned role in continental Europe. His policies were (are?) known as "Gaullism," and are (outside of France) dismissed as his totally unrealistic belief that France should be a world power.174.52.250.90 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1990 Two Plus Four negotiations and alleged promise

The second paragraph in the "Post-Cold War" subsection is dominated by discussion of "a promise" given by unnamed "Western" negotiators regarding future NATO enlargement. I fear that repeated emphasis of this may not be neutral, that the phrasing seems to be aimed at putting a 2014 anti-NATO spin on 1990 events, and that we might be giving it undue weight in this section, considering that the same information is also included in the Expansion section, in the article on the Two Plus Four Treaty, and in the Enlargement of NATO article, often verbatim. As such, I condensed the text used here and added a phrase to preface the discussion stating "there are diverging view on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east." My edits were immediately undone by User:AntiqueReader, and not wanting anyone to feel offended, suggest we use the Talk page here to agree on how to deal with this little topic. Regarding the potential for copyright violations, my suggestion was not that the Speigel Online sentences were necessarily a violation, but that it is always better to rephrase a source and work it into the text when we don't need a word-for-word quote. Non-free content is only to be used when there is no possible equivalent.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of using Gorbachev's memoir as a source for his opinions on the "promise," as far as I understand, primary sources are allowed when secondary or tertiary are unavailable. Since we have The Telegraph already as a source for his quote in the sentence, I don't exactly understand what Gorbachev's memoir is sourcing, if anything. And even if other articles might use memoirs, it doesn't mean its appropriate in this situation. As for the Foreign Policy article, it doesn't add new specifics here, but seemed like a good overview of the controversy, so a good way to cite the sentence that just says "there are diverging views." Again, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, I'm just trying to keep the article up to spec.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical typo in French withdrawal paragraph

In February 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean Fleet from NATO command. He later banned [...]

I guess "He" is supposed to refer to de Gaulle, but since he isn't mentioned in the sentence before, he can't be referred to by pronoun. So change it either to "It" (referring to France) or "De Gaulle".

Done Combined with the previous sentence so that "France" is the pronoun.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo and small error

The last part of the introduction has a typo and should be updated from 4 to 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgeditor (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Where exactly is the 4 which you think is a typo? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

NATO's support of terrorism

The article lacks info about NATO's support of terrorism in Lybia, Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine. Viktor Š 19:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support of terrorism? Sounds like nothing more than a conspiracy theory to me, and so I would expect it to be classified under WP:FRINGE. Dustin (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Resistance to NATO" section

I removed a section titled "Resistance to NATO" today because it read like a criticism section and a summary of its source reference "natoprotest.org". Here's the text:

{{Pre|

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

The secretary general of Nato is now "Jens Stoltenberg" and not the previous "Anders Fogh Rasmussen". Please change this. Rypdalen (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but the official change of office has not yet taken place. Rasmussen will step down as of September 30, 2014 with his successor taking office as of October 1. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

NATO is not a Military Alliance - NATO is a Political Alliance. (Big, very Big, Huge Difference)

192.41.140.2 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

NATO, the EU, and Non-NATO EU Nations

Non-NATO member nations of the EU have a sui generis partnership relationship with NATO distinct from and more significant than the other Partnership for Peace nations. The EU itself is a significant and multifaceted partner of NATO. The two organizations have an extensive web of bilateral obligations and cooperations.

Sweden and Finland are approaching de facto NATO membership. The evolution of this relationship has accelerated since the Ukraine War. Opinion polls in both countries now favor official NATO membership. NATO distinguishes Sweden's relationship as unparalleled among partners, "Sweden (has) reached a new level of partnership, which has no parallels among partner states." Russia has recognized the acceleration of ties between Sweden, Finland and NATO and warned against official membership.

Austria has increased its ties to NATO over and above those that exist through the EU-NATO treaties as well as Austria's Partnership for Peace obligations. 7o62x39 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

In the introductory paragraph of Section Structures, mention is made of the construction of the new NATO headquarters. The completion date has been moved back to 2016.

I would recommend that the sentence:

A new headquarters building is, as of 2010, under construction nearby, due for completion by 2015.

be changed to:

A new headquarters building is, as of 2014, under construction nearby, due for completion by 2016.

173.183.170.197 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Used an AP story instead of the press release. Thanks for helping to keep this up to date!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Criticism

This article should include its among critics, "Turks who want to go to war Greece" and "Greeks who want to go to war with Turkey". The point being can something not be said for NATO keeping the peace in Europe (among its member states) for the last seventy years?

The first sentence of your comment doesn't make grammatical sense so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you trying to argue that NATO has preserved the peace between Greece and Turkey? That's a very superficial argument, because I have to ask: "At what cost?" Turkey expelled vast numbers of Greeks in 1955, attempted to invade Cyprus in 1964 and 1967, did invade in 1974 under American cover, and has made an ever-increasing number of territorial claims against Greece since the 1970s. Sure, there technically hasn't been a war over this, but if you ask the Greek people whether NATO has helped their cause, I suspect the majority will tell you squarely "no", because NATO is perceived there (quite rightly, I think) to be supportive of Turkey. Therefore the Greek state spends large amounts on a very large military to defend against what should be an ally, and when there are incidents (some of which have cost lives), the resolution is always against Greece's interests. This enforced "peace" is hardly beneficial. It has just emboldened Turkey over the years (which is why their claims have become more elaborate) and has led to a stagnant status quo in which Greece cannot find solutions to any of its territorial problems. In this context, I would suggest to you that the lack of outright war between the two countries since NATO's formation does not mean a big war isn't in the cards at some point in the future. It may come, it may not. Certainly there will continue to be a steady blood-letting until the substantive issues actually get resolved. So.... how do you want to incorporate THAT in the article? ;) 76.10.180.96 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)