Talk:NATO/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The promise by James Baker (US Secretary of State) to Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9 1990: “NATO will not move one inch further east”

Shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall, Germany was included into NATO. As multiple declassified documents, notes and cables show, together with newspaper articles by Der Spiegel, The New York Times (NYT) and Russia Beyond (the latter being referenced by the NYT), the inclusion of Germany into NATO followed a cascade of assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev given by Western leaders about the limits of NATO’s expansion.

Even at a distance of many years, on 2014, Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed in an interview that in 1990 “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. [..] The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.”, etc.

Following the interview of Yanis Varoufakis on Febryary 24 2022, where he said that “We have to create international solidarity [..] for NATO to keep out of Europe, and especially Eastern Europe, as, let’s not forget, George Bush — the senior George Bush — had promised Mikhail Gorbachev”, I was surprised that there is no mention about this promise on the Wikipedia page of NATO.

After a short investigation, however, it turned out that there have been several attempts indeed to insert this information, but many of these were reverted by the same user, Patrickneil, for example here, here, and here. His argument is essentially that this event is not notable, or not factual, without however engaging into a discussion (or at least not on his talk page).

On the other side, the Baker-Gorbachev Pact is well covered on a dedicated page of Wikipedia, but this page is very hard to find for someone who just visits the NATO article.

Given the key role that this event may be playing in the Ukraine war, which has been compared even to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the Soviet Union vice-versa entered the sphere of influence of the US, I will proceed to reintroduce this event in the NATO page directly. If anybody want to discuss in more details, let’s please do it here.Morgoonki (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What you tell is not the full story. Reading Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany#Eastward_expansion_of_NATO reveals that the issue of eastward expansion was never formally discussed. Gorbachev himself admitted it. The alleged promise was made in a rather secret pact, solely between the US and the USSR. It is easy to see how that makes it irrelevant: how would these two countries (one of which doesn't even exist anymore) have the legitimacy to permanently keep 14 European countries from ever joining NATO, when neither the 14 nor NATO were consulted on the matter? And isn't this addition being driven by WP:RECENTISM, aggravated by the fact that such a line of reasoning is currently being used to support the brutal and hedious ongoing invasion of Ukraine by the dictatorial regime of Vladimir Putin? Finally, the article you have cited of the alleged pact is not well-covered: it was created yesterday! And I find it non-neutral for the same reasons, having also initiated a discussion there. Therefore, it is my belief that your proposed addition to this article makes no sense and should be rejected. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Answer to “was never formally discussed”: the wiki page that you cite says in fact the opposite. For example it says: “In 2005, historian Stephen F. Cohen said that a commitment was given that NATO would never expand further east”, “In 1993, then Russian president Boris Yeltsin wrote: "The spirit of the treaty precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East.”, and “On 7 May 2008, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev [..] stated [..] that [..] the Americans promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members”. I agree that there are some disputes on which agreement exactly has been discussed, but that’s different than claiming that it was never formally discussed.

Answer to “solely between the US and the USSR”: this is contrast with the declassified documents. Quoting again the National Security Archive: “The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing [..]”, “The Tutzing formula immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east.”, “The former idea about closer to the Soviet borders is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) ”.

Answer to “this line of reasoning is currently being used to support the brutal and hedious ongoing invasion of Ukraine”: it is not up to Wikipedia to support or not support the invasion. On the contrary, all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Purging references to historical facts just because they may have political implications is violating the Wikipedia policies.

Answer to “the article you have cited of the alleged pact is not well-covered: it was created yesterday!”: I have cited four references on the pact: 1. Der Spiegel (February 18 2022), 2. NYT (January 9 2022) and Russia Beyond (October 16 2014). The only link of “yesterday” was to Democracy Now about the Cuban Missile Crisis parallelism.

If you don’t see these points, I kindly invite you to support them with concrete references. Please also kindly double-check your comments before uploading them: mistakes (like the dates of the references above) cause a lot of overhead to rectify. In the meantime, I think it is urgent to restore some WP:NPOV. Thank you! Morgoonki (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You have only quoted from Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany#Eastward_expansion_of_NATO the parts that interested to your position. Read it completely and you will find also that, "according to Robert Zoellick, then a US State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this [the commitment that NATO would not expand east] appears to be a misperception, as no formal commitment of the sort was made." And: "In a 2014 interview, Gorbachev reversed himself by saying that the topic of 'NATO expansion' as such was 'not discussed at all'." And even: "In 1997, NATO and Russia signed a treaty stating that each country had a sovereign right to seek alliances." So, as you can see, the available information is very contradictory about whether the issue was discussed or not; what we know for sure is that no treaty containing that was formally signed and made public for all to see. Whatever happened in all those meetings is unclear. (You recognise that it is all written only in memoranda and declassified documents.) And yet you want to write in the lead of the article that an alleged informal pact was breached by 14 nations? I find it unreasonable; spoken and informal agreements are not relevant for the history of NATO. (A written treaty made public would be.)

That answers your first two paragraphs. About the third one, you are right in saying that we are not to decide what belongs in Wikipedia based on political implications. But I didn't say that was the main breach of policy here: the main problem is WP:RECENTISM, which remains a problem of your line of reasoning, because we are not supposed to be looking into historical events from the heat of a current war (my mention that your line of reasoning is supporting Putin's stance was made only as an aggravating factor, whose dismissal I accept, the main issue being WP:RECENTISM instead).

Finally, there must have been a misunderstanding about the dates: what I said was that the article was created two days ago. Someone wrote an article about that alleged historical event from the heat of this war. I don't think we're supposed to do that. LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@LongLivePortugal: I am sorry, but I find your way of thinking not consistent. You pass from “the non-expansion was never formally discussed”, to “yes it was discussed, but only in memoranda”, to “informal agreements are not relevant”. In my opinion you are just trying to erase from Wikipedia this part of history with whatever arguments, and in contrast with standard WP policies. I hope that somebody else, some one neutral and not involved in the serial deletion of this part of history (see here in 2014, here in 2015, here in 2018 and here ongoing) will chime in.

It is since 2014 (see links above) that someone does not want this part of the history to exist (which is perfectly understandable given the political impact of this page), hence WP:RECENTISM is in my opinion just and excuse. Morgoonki (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morgoonki: There is no contradiction among the three statements you quoted from me: yes, the expansion issue was not formally discussed; it was discussed in informal conversations which were recorded only in memoranda and which paved the pay for the formal 2+4 Agreement, which made no mention of the NATO issue; this makes the informal preliminary conversations about NATO expansion irrelevant, as no agreement was reached and signed about that issue, which would have made it relevant if it had happened. Finally, it is also irrelevant for you to bring up past discussions when talking with me, given that you can see that I wasn't editing at that time. Thus, when confronted with these edits right now, my accusation of WP:RECENTISM still stands. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your assertions is that nothing was ever codified into law. And the parties involved have made conflicting statement in the many years since German reunification. In the same interview with Gorbachev, he said

"The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

When we get into the realm of 'promises' in global political discourse, we fall into the exact same realm of vagaries as Mr. Putin's 'promises' that the troops massed on Ukraine's border were merely "military exercises, drills, are purely defensive and are not a threat to any other country."

Truth tends to be rather fluid at this level. Regardless, no legal commitment not to expand further east was ever made; Mr. Putin is merely making ex post facto justifications for his beligerence.

Since 1990, the Soviet Union dissolved - the body that any pact was made with - and fourteen nations 'east' of Germany have joined NATO. Putin is doing what Putin does best: hanging pretext on anything he can grasp at.

Beyond that, the 'pact' is discussed in the body of the article. Adding yet another of Putin's prevarications to the lede as suggestive that something was "violated" doesn't stand muster under WP:WEIGHT. Anastrophe (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Answer to “The problem with your assertions is that nothing was ever codified into law”: of course the Baker-Gorbachev Pact was not voted by a parliament (if this is what you mean). Still, quoting again the National Security Archive: the idea “is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) ”. You may argue that “memoranda” are not worth being respected. For what that matters, NATO countries haven’t respected even written and signed documents, like the Charter of the United Nations for example when NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Anyhow, it is not up to Wikipedia to judge what should or not be respected.

You cite the Wikipedia policy “Due and undue weight” WP:WEIGHT, but this says, quote: “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”. Are you claiming that the Baker-Gorbachev Pact is not significant? Please kindly keep the full WP:NPOV in mind when answering. Thank you! Morgoonki (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The critical wording in what you highlight above is not "all significant viewpoints" but "all significant viewpoints". Significant. Again, and I don't intend condescension, focus on that word: SIGNIFICANT. The significance of informal promises made in the geopolitical tableau, during other negotiations, with a defunct state, more than thirty years ago, is LOW with regard to NATO as a whole. That is not to say that DURING the interval whence German reunification was taking place, it may have some significance. This why elsewhere at the Baker-Gorbachev Pact I (will be, haven't yet, need more coffee intervention) voting against deletion, and will attempt to copyedit for better clarity and wording (it has a number of textual errors). I'm 62 - this all occurred during my lifetime, and I was unaware of these alleged 'promises' - it's an interesting historical matter, and coverage belongs in the encyclopedia, regardless of it having become prominent due to the current Ukraine conflict. But the 'pact' is only "significant" relevant to Putin's ex post facto justifications; to the history of NATO? A footnote.

And please stop edit warring. As above, the 'pact' is interesting, but it is not a SIGNFICANT matter to this NATO article, and Putin's reliance upon it is not a justification for giving it prominence in the lede of the article. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The legal status is irrelevant. The question is not whether this has legal force - we are not qualified to answer and it would be OR anyway. What matters is whether reliable sources mention it when describing the history of NATO during and after the breakup of the USSR. Alaexis_¿question? 10:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, too. The statement on the Baker-Gorbachev Pact may be added if we find information about it in reliable sources within the context of the history of NATO. If we add the pact based on other kinds of sources in order to conclude that it was broken, we may be violating the WP:SYNTH policy. LongLivePortugal (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@LongLivePortugal: Are you seriously claiming that the references to the declassified documents, to Der Spiegel or of the New York Times are not reliable sources or are not within the context of the NATO?? Morgoonki (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to agree that no, mentioning of any promises during the 2+4 negotiations in 1990 is not significant enough to be included in the lead, which is intended as a summary of the article's major points, and I don't think this is a major point in the 73 years of history it covers. I understand how important the idea of a "broken promise" is to many editors, but it just hasn't had any actual effect on NATO nor its enlargement. And to clarify a bit, the neutrality policy at WP:NPOV doesn't mean I get to state my viewpoint and then you get to state your viewpoint, it means that no viewpoints get stated. We can describe a dispute, which is what I believe we already do in the Enlargement section. I also should mention that I nominated this "Baker-Gorbachev Pact" article that was created earlier this week for deletion, so interested editors could make their opinions known on the relevant AfD page. Lastly, just a friendly reminder not to edit war, just take your points to the discussion pages. Thanks!-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 17:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morgoonki: None of the three sources you mention describe the history of NATO, which is why I say that they present the agreement outside the context of the history of NATO. For this context to occur, you would have to find a source focused on the history of NATO which would also mention this alleged pact. If you take sources that discuss only the pact and use them to conclude that there was a relevant pact that was breached later throughout the history of NATO, that sounds to me like synthesis of material. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the demand of President Vladimir Putin a major point? M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@LongLivePortugal: Saying that the declassified documents, the article of Der Spiegel or the article of New York Times are not about NATO (or its history -whatever your unclear sentence means) is just blatantly false and ridiculous. It is impossible to continue a discussion under these circumstances. The misconducts happening in this page need urgent and broader attention. Morgoonki (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morgoonki: They are not about NATO in the sense that they do not focus on it. If you find sources about the whole history of NATO which mention this "Baker-Gorbachev Pact" within them, then that would prove that the pact is actually relevant for the history of NATO, thence sufficiently relevant for us to include it here. Otherwise, it is as "a footnote" to history, as another editor wrote here, because the sources describe a specific conversation that occurred and not the history of NATO in general (which is what@Morgoonki: this article is trying to cover). I believe that this was the point of User:Alaexis, if I understood it correctly. LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

LongLivePortugal, I've just checked Jan Eichler's NATO’s Expansion After the Cold War written in 2021 and he does mention Baker's promise:

“ On 9 February 1990, in Moscow, Mr James Baker presented to Gorbachev and Shevardnadze his famous formula “not one inch eastward” (Gorbachev and Baker 1990a). And during his negotiations with Shevardnadze, on 4May 1990, he promised that the role of the CSCE would be strengthened and reassured him that the new international order would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce

a new legitimate European structure—“one that would be inclusive, not exclusive” (Gorbachev and Baker 1990b).

”

It's worth checking other sources too but this would indicate that it's considered important. Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beland: Your edit introduces two inaccuracies: 1. there was not just a commitment by two people (Genscher and Baker as you wrote), but (as already discussed few lines above in this talk page) there are multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors, including also Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner; and 2. since the publication on December 12 2017 of the declassified documents and cables by the National Security Archive, there is no longer a matter of dispute among historians and international relations scholars as you wrote: in fact, the references you cite to support this thesis (the two publications by the same author Kramer) are dated earlier (2009 and July 2017). See also the comments few lines above by Alaexis. I bring therefore the text to its previous version. Morgoonki (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morgoonki: I did not write the material; I copied it from Enlargement of NATO. After your revert, this article and that article now contradict each other. The text from that article does seem like a more neutral summary. It's not disputed now so much what was said but as to whether it represents a non-binding promise, a binding promise, or a potential promise.

Baker-Gorbachev Pact has been renamed Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations because there seems to be consensus that there was not a definitive agreement or pact. Certainly this did not result in a formal treaty. The U.S. and Russia are currently loudly disputing the strength of this promise, and Wikipedia should not take sides when there's not a clear academic consensus in favor of any particular interpretation. The text I copied in does link to other articles with more information so readers can get the full back-and-forth and decide for themselves. It's fine if you want to add a bit more detail about who said what, but the text should clearly indicate the disputed nature of the outcome. -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to step on your feet, Beland, if you do want to use that sentence from Enlargement of NATO feel free to re-add it. I did write it as an attempt balance the issue and follow WP:IMPARTIAL, which suggests describing disputes without endorsing their arguments. Personally, I'd love to keep the Enlargement section here short and summary style, but know it's a bit of a magnet for this 1990 issue (see above), so some mention might be needed to satisfy other users. I fear a bit that any mention will grow quickly into a paragraph that would be undue again. But if you do add more, perhaps try to build it into the end of first sentence of the second paragraph there?-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 02:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis: I see you put the "Despite assurances" phrase back in this morning, which now has four sources after the comma. As I've said, I don't think the 1990 2+4 negotiations had any affect on the 14 countries that joined NATO since then, so prefacing the whole section about them joining with this phrase seems to give it an inordinate amount of undue weight. And we have always mentioned Russian opposition to enlargement in the second paragraph anyways. I do just want to discuss those sources for a second, because I feel like I'm the only one reading them.

• The New York Times article from January is titled "In Ukraine Conflict, Putin Relies on a Promise That Ultimately Wasn't". It's a good overview of the history of Russia's grievance, but utterly debunks the idea, calling it "a selective account of what really happened, used to justify Russian aggression for years."
• The 2021 book by Jan Eichler says, in the pages you cite, that "The USA gave no explicit promise in this regard: all conclusions that there was a promise that NATO would not expand are only political myths."
• The Der Spiegel article is an opinion piece, which we generally discourage on Wikipedia, but it too makes clear "Allerdings traf der Westen keine völkerrechtlich bindende Vereinbarung mit dem Kreml, die eine Nato-Osterweiterung ausschließt." Put that in Google Translate if you need to, but it say "However, the West did not meet an international agreement with the Kremlin excluding NATO eastward enlargement." I'm happy to share the article's text if the paywall is an issue for anyone.
• Then the 2017 website from "National Security Archive", with its primary sources (again, discouraged on Wikipedia), says what I feel like I've been pointing out for years here on these talk pages. Yes, Gorbachev believed he had assurance, "But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO."

In the specific memo of the conversation between James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, you can go to Vladimir Putin's favorite line, the "one inch" line, it's on page 6. The important part for me is the sentence after: "We could have discussion in a two plus four context that might achieve this kind of outcome." And the key there, is that they didn't, they didn't have negotiations that achieved that kind of outcome. So I'm kind of baffled why folks keep using these specific sources to say the opposite. All of this is, of course, on top of the idea that James Baker and Hans-Dietrich Genscher aren't NATO, that they weren't speaking on behalf of NATO, and so why their back-room negotiations would be binding for the organization such that this section on this article would need to start with a mention of their conversations is a big, on-going problem for me.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Patrickneil, I think the question is not whether there were explicit promises but rather how reliable sources treat these events. The Eichler's book on the NATO expansion dedicates a whole chapter to the matter, contrasting the open declarations and secret negotiations. He clearly considers it important, see the conclusions p. 37

“ The negotiations waged between 1990 and 1991 are seen not only as a part of recent history but also in the light of their consequences for the ISR in the Northern Hemisphere. The leading Western politicians of that period are often celebrated as the respected winners and founders of a radically new international order. On the other hand, some critical authors see the above-mentioned behaviour of the West as cynical hypocrisy and a merciless egoism which sowed the seeds of many future problems, especially the great bitterness among the Russian elites, which resulted in their determination to get revenge for the unjust end of the Cold War. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 14:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Btw I'm not wedded to this particular wording and placement, possibly we need to mention other things to provide a proper context. E.g, we can add that no explicit promises were given by anyone who had the authority to do so, or something along these lines. Alaexis_¿question? 14:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

So we agree, the idea of a 1990 commitment is an important myth. Clearly its among the rationals Vladimir Putin is using to incinerate children fleeing from Kyiv, so yes, important and worth filling newspaper articles, magazines, and libraries of books. But an infinite amount of sources still doesn't mean their topic needs to be mentioned here, on this article, on Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, particularly being presented as a fact. There is certainly a direct line between James Baker and current NATO/Russian tensions, but there just isn't a direct line between James Baker and the history of NATO enlargement in 1999, 2004, etc, which is what this section is about. Show me where Montenegro, after completing it's treaty ratification process, said "oops, James Baker promised NATO wouldn't expand, nevermind." In the second paragraph of this section, we do have a sentence summarizing the issue: "Russia continues to politically oppose further expansion, seeing it as inconsistent with informal understandings between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and European and US negotiators that allowed for a peaceful German reunification." I think that is accurate and sufficient coverage for this tangential issue, but that prefacing the section with it is undue. If you are open to different wording and different placement, what did you think about Beland's suggestion of using the wording from Enlargement of NATO, perhaps in that second paragraph?-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

On the second thought, the discussion on the assurances and their impact belongs more properly to the history section. If you don't mind I'll move it there. For the Members section the sentence you mentioned is sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 18:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I have just attempted to rephrase, in order to contextualise this event, as you suggested. LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

“Expenses”

It doesn’t make sense to me that the “expenses” line in the info box refers to the combined military expenditures of the member states. This article is about the organization itself, so “expenses” ought to refer to the expenses of the organization, which are obviously well under a trillion dollars. To be clear, I think this information should be retained in the infobox, but I’m wondering what a more accurate heading would be. Wallnot (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Geopolitics missing

NATO is a military alliance and, so, a fundamentaly a geopolitical entity. All discussion of geopolitics is missing from this article. The Soviet Union, the raison d'etre for the creation of NATO does not even find a mention in the lead. Nor does the article explain why NATO continues to exist even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The debates surround the expansion of NATO after the end of Soviet Union are not discussed either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Key material is sourced to NATO itself (WP:SPS), and historical coverage of the 1940–2000 period is often sourced to contemporary news articles from recent decades, which are only reliable for "news", not history. (See WP:NEWSORG and WP:HISTRS) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Needless to say almost all the sources are from NATO member countries, which can be expected to take a pro-NATO line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead can be easily fixed, which I've just done (removing a claim someone had snuck in blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine for good measure). I've removed the POV tag, as it seems exessive for easily-addressed concerns to a high profile (especially at the moment) article. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction on the promise of "East" by Baker to Russia.

The specifics of the private discussion were as it related to East Germany, because that was what concerned Russia. Baker assured Russia that no foreign military bases would be built even one inch across the Berlin Wall into East Germany. We upheld that agreement, as evident by maps of military installations in Germany.

This was also confirmed by Gorbachev, as well as others present that day. Gorbachev was not even in negotiations at the time, the Soviets had ceased negotiations and resumed them 10 days later. Presumably, Baker's offer reached Gorbachev.

Of course, we all know that none of this was written at the time of the signing of the agreement by either party, and neither party even brought it up.

Thank you. My sources: Declassified documents of specific conversations between Baker and Russia, Gorbachev himself, Baker's assistant, several articles including a 2009 The Washington Quarterly article and a Nov 6, 2014 Brookings.edu article by Steven Pifer. 107.77.169.24 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Benefits

What are the benefits. 103.157.186.226 (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2022 ? UTC)

read me....I am a source from this article.Moxy- 04:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

North of the Tropic of Cancer

@Wallnot: well, I'm ready to discuss this. I see that there were various discussions in archives as well. This is not original research, we're making map based on the text NATO provides. It doesn't say that those two are under NATO protection. [1] even their own map doesn't show it. Again, art. 6 [2]:

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 Turkey 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.

Similarly see North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6: Article 6 states that the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. It was the opinion in August 1965 of the US State Department, the US Defense Department and the legal division of NATO that an attack on the U.S. state of Hawaii would not trigger the treaty, but an attack on the other 49 would.

References

So I am saying that, instead putting member countries, describe it like that. It's misleading.

Beshogur (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

this absolutely is original research. See WP:SYNTH. NATO article 6 is a primary source document, and by combining its text with another source (eg, one saying Puerto Rico is south of the Tropic of Cancer), you are conducting original research. I encourage you to look for a reliable secondary source that says what you are hoping to add. Wallnot (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny that you have no comment on texts about article 5 in this article below. All cite NATO. Those are OR as well. How did you come to conclusion that Puerto Rico and Guyana are under NATO? Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

primary sources can be used as references in some circumstances. That doesn’t mean they can be synthesized. If what you say is correct, I’m sure there’s a reliable source out there to support it, and I encourage you to find it. Wallnot (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not editing something important in the lead or body, I showing member states' overseas territories is misleading, and doesn't reflect the NATO treaty. Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: @Beshogur: it is also important to note for this discussion that Beshogur has removed the discussed territories from the Map image in Wikipedia commons. I’m reverting that move until a consensus has been reached here. Garuda28 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: For what it's worth, as a gesture of good faith, I just spent about 15 mins looking for a reliable secondary source to back up your claim (which, based on the text of article 6, seems to be correct, though as I said, we can't cite that proposition to Article 6, we need an RS to interpret Article 6 for us). I wasn't able to find any. Wallnot (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not my claim. If you read article 6, it says what it says. It's obvious that north of Tropic is Cancer is included only, see NATO's interactive map as well. There is no source either that UK/USA/France's overseas departments are under NATO protection. Beshogur (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: found this[3]. See 7-5. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Article 6 does not say that Puerto Rico et al. are not included. However obvious it is that they are north of the Tropic of Cancer, If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. See WP:SYNTH. We don't need a source stating that UK/USA/France's overseas departments are under NATO protection, because the caption presently reads "Land controlled by member states shown in dark green"—not "Land protected by alliance". Wallnot (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

However obvious it is that they are north of the Tropic of Cancer Nope, they're south of it. That's what I'm saying. see map. Well, instead we can say with a note tag that territories south of Tropic of Cancer isn't under NATO protection, and change the main sentence as "Member states", instead of "Land controlled". Beshogur (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand the secondary source shenanigans here. The law is quite clear that Hawaii and Puerto Rico and French Guiana are not protected under NATO. I don’t think anybody needs a secondary source to confirm that California Penal Code § 187 states that murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought as it is clear on that. Also Hawaii not being covered has already been cited in a secondary source and NATO’s own map shows that Hawaii and those other areas are not protected by NATO. It’s quite clear that it is a blatant lie to say or imply that these other areas are under NATO protection. Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, north, south, whatever you said. I don't see that there's a need to change to change the note. "Land controlled by member states" is accurate. If you edit the map to remove land south of the tropic of cancer, "Member states" would be inaccurate, because that would exclude Hawaii (not to mention fact that territories are arguably part of the states themselves. Wallnot (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Territories are not part of states. Puerto Rico is not a part of the United States. It only belongs to the United States. That is one of the reasons as to why the constitution of the United States does not apply to Puerto Rico or other territories unless Congress says so. Essentially territories are property that belong to the United States. See the page on the Insular Cases#Background for more information. Similar situation with British Overseas Territories. They are not part of the United Kingdom but are territories for which Parliament and Her Majesty are responsible for. Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Are not necessarily part of states*. In some countries such as Canada they are, but they are not a part of a country in all countries. Fluffy89502 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Please add on the expenses column in pounds GBP £736.19 billion 192.175.42.246 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think it makes sense. Exchange rates are constantly changing. Either we have a source for a specific value in different currencies or we just use the value in the currency given in the source used. In this case, since the source appears to give us the value in US dollars only, I have chosen to actually remove the value in euros and keep it only in USD. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

There needs to be country identifiers in the map. Anyone know how to do this? —69.181.193.59 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is just a regular talk page question, rather than a requested edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Paramilitary Operations

There's a good Military Operations section, but no Paramilitary Operations section. This should include for example the stay behind organisations which NATO created in Western Europe and which participated in right-wing terrorism. Faulty (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and that section should also include how those NATO missions were/are part of the CIA's history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:200:5C40:C18E:5F3:7247:3519 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Iceland not part of Scandinavia

"The three Scandinavian members Denmark, Iceland and Norway which joined NATO as founding members [...]". Iceland are not part of Scandinavia, only Norway, Sweden and Denmark are. Should change "Scandinavian" to "Nordic", where also Iceland and Finland are included. Marfug060302 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Number of NATO troops?

Zelensky said only 1 % of NATO's tanks, could suffice to Ukraine. Can someone include the number of tanks, troops etc. Can also include a 2022 section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.35.108 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The information on troops is already present at Member states of NATO. As for tanks, we would need sources to add it. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, anyone who has edit privilege should add this number within the infobox I suppose. And for tanks, I suppose we have sources, for each country, they simply need to be gathered into an aggrgate number.--194.199.143.58 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the number of "NATO military personnel" is often stated in misleading ways. Most NATO "military personnel" are not those who fight.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 432, IR in the 20th Century 2022

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MingyueH (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Nordic

Why is Iceland, Norway and Denmark labeled as Scandinavian when Nordic would be more correct? 2A01:799:1660:D300:CC01:B90D:A2F2:A8A9 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yes, technically Scandinavia is just Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and though the definition is flexible and Iceland is often included, Nordic is a fine substitute for accuracy.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

System of collective security

NATO is not a system of collective security. It is a system of collective defense. The follow-up sentence describes precisely that. "...its independent member states agree to defend each other against attacks by third parties." That's effectively the definition of a system of collective defense. 2A02:8071:B81:2200:A585:9F47:7C72:FE65 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

Remove the sentence "Talks between Turkey, Finland, and Sweden are underway to resolve the issue" as the sentence directly after, "On 28 June, at a NATO summit in Madrid, Turkey agreed to support the membership bids of Finland and Sweden" makes this line redundant Loganp23 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NATO Involvement in Russia-Ukraine War

1: Should NATO involvement in the war be added? 2: Would that section be called "Response to Russia-Ukraine War" or 'Involvement in Russia-Ukraine War" 3: Does pass by Wikipedia nobility guidelines?

Thanks for helping!

(BadKarma22 (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC))

Another point: I think the global map showing Russia as a "Partnership of Peace" in orange should be updated. Thanks to those who do the work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.117.141.141 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Up to date?

The introduction reads: Enlargement has led to tensions with non-member Russia, which is one of the twenty additional countries that participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme. Is Russia still member of PfP? Or is it either suspended or excluded? --2A02:908:C33:A180:24A:8695:E001:28A7 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2022: grammar; wording

Change: “It is however officially a different structure from NATO” to: “It is however a structure different from NATO” {grammar}

Change: “NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but” to: “NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations and” {there is no contradiction between both clause’s meanings} 86.90.202.241 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Propose change to main image caption

Main captions currently reads " Land controlled by member states shown in dark green." I propose we change this to the much simpler "Member states in dark green." Territories are still parts of the member states (for instance Greenland is part of Denmark), so this caption would be simpler while still accurate. Garuda28 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Different jurisdictions may or may not consider possessions/territories to be legally “part” of them. Rather than conduct WP:OR to try to sort that out, it’s better and easier to stick with the original caption, which we know to be accurate. Wallnot (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: Do you have any examples? I do not believe WP:OR applies in this case. On similar articles we have "Members of the United Nations" at United Nations, so the precedence exists. Garuda28 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories are not formally part of the UK, eg. Wallnot (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: That is not a problem as British Overseas Territories (like in Cyprus) do not appear on the map. Garuda28 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. I suppose I'm inclined to be cautious on the off chance we are missing a member nation with an overseas territory that is not formally part of the country but does appear in green on the map. But given that I haven't been able to find any, go ahead and write it as you'd like. Wallnot (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Thorough discussion requires some back-and-forth discussion and a clear attempt to resolve the discussion between you. Also, though the 3O request was not removed for this reason, the request was not made according to the instructions on the 3O page and on the listing page. If a 3O is still needed after thorough discussion has taken place, please read all instructions carefully before relisting. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding Sweden and Finland to NATO member states

Is it possible to add both Sweden and Finland to NATO member countries since the accession protocols are signed and completed recently? FireDragonValo (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, they aren't member states until all member states have ratified which can be in 5 years or never. --2A02:908:C33:A180:5B:7E47:5F10:848B (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Buden signed this. But that is only 23rd who ratified. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rasmih (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rasmih (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

NATO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not delisted per Moxy's rationale above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Specific historical facts are routinely censored in this page as highlighted here. The quality of the discussion in the talk page has reached very low levels making it impossible to hold a conversation. The page is also a theater of edit-warring, which should cause immediate failure of being considered a good article. Morgoonki (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you are mischaracterizing both the material and the discussion.

First - it is historical information. Characterizing it as 'facts', when parties involved have made multiple contradictory claims (found in reliable sources) is a conflation. This is easily exemplified by Gorbachev's vaccilation in discussing the matters.

Second, you have grossly mischaracterized the material in creating Baker-Gorbachev Pact. The word Pact has a specific meaning. The negotiations were in no way, shape, form, characterization, or context, a "pact". Please read up on the definition if necessary.

Third, jumping to the "censorship" argument is facile. You have already violated 3RR in your attempts to push a narrative that you are fond of. That's not censorship, that's ensuring that editors don't push their POV to the top of an article, giving the material greater weight than it holds.

Fourth, you have characterized in your edit summaries justifying your additions that there was an 'emerging consensus' on the talk page - unfortunately, the emerging consensus was that the material was not appropriate to the lead. The Baker-Gorbachev (Shevardnadze,Kohl, Genscher, etc etc) discussions - not even formal negotiations - are an interesting footnote in the history of what took place. Assigning it the importance of a violated legal pact is over the top.

As I have stated elsewhere, these matters are interesting, and deserve coverage; they don't necessarily warrant their own separate article, and more importantly, they are not critical to the body NATO itself, not such that they need to be relitigated in the lede of the article.

The discussion on the talk page has been largely civil. Characterizing it as being 'very low' quality is a misrepresentation, the rationales of all parties have been stated very clearly. That you dislike that you have little agreement doesn't make the discussion 'low quality', it simply means that the consensus thus far doesn't support your additions, specifically in the lead of the article.

There is no need for reassessment. Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The page you linked to specifically says that a page being the subject of an edit war should result in the immediate failure of a Good Article Review, only when the edit war is prior to the article being made a good article. It should be obvious that anything Good or higher isn't immediately delisted as soon as an edit war starts. Loafiewa (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• "The NATO Hymn", performed by the United States Air Force Band.mp3

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

NATO is more than just a system of collective security

On this page one can read that „NATO is a system of collective security“. This is objectively wrong and ought to be changed effective immediately. Take for example the heinous and despicable invasion of Jugoslavia by NATO, in which case NATO attacked and invaded Jugoslavia without being threatened by the Jugoslavia regime. Or the evil invasion of Iraq by NATO, where 3.2 million Iraqis were murdered by the „collective security“ system of NATO. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:74D3:E7A2:6013:E184 (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change something in the article you'll need to find reliable sources which characterise NATO differently. Alaexis_¿question? 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Might also be worth mentioningthe extent of Nazi rehabilitation in NATO, people like adolf heusinger, Johannes Steinhof, Johan von kieselmansegg, Ernst ferber, Jurgen Bennecke and many others. the highest position in NATOs command structure has litterally been held by actual Nazis who served hitler and aided in the carrying out of the holocaust TWICE! How is this not being mentioned even once?? O-caudata (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, this would need reliable sources, which may be why it is not being mentioned.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's litterally on wikipedia, look up the names i mentioned and search the page for the word NATO: Adolf Heusinger, Johannes Steinhoff, O-caudata (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It's the job of other people to do research for you. If you want to this information included, provide sources for it. Cortador (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The invasion of Iraq was a hideous and evil campaign of a U.S. led force, not NATO-led. The Yugoslavian bombing campaign is already mentioned in the article, and whether it has to deal with security or not is already the subject of another article. My guess is that you will get into a match with someone over what "collective security system" means.

Not arguing against you, just letting you know what you're up against. Fephisto (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I do believe NATO participated in the Iraq war with a "training mission" NATO Training Mission – Iraq 31.208.28.93 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Requires pertinent updates

The recent entries on NATO appear old and stale. I attempted to introduce new historical sources, we have entries here that are over 10 years old, update these paragraphs! Osterluzei (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Restore infobox flags

I noticed country flags were removed from the infobox. I would prefer restoring them, if only to make member states more easily identified, though I admit it is mostly a personal preference of mine. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Assurances to Gorbatchev in 1990

It should be precised that, according to some like Baker, these assurances only applied to East Germany. The source from Der Spiegel is not really relevant imo as these diplomatic talks have not been discovered recently. Tom10tom (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

in this sub-section, the date is incorrect, it's supposed to be September 27th, 2022, but instead its 3 months into the future Please fix this 2A10:8001:E494:0:1DC:E089:AF0B:4C27 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Remove "The entry of Finland and Sweden was ratified by Slovakia on 27 December 2022", as it is not December 27th. JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The websites cited indicate September, so I changed it.—Anita5192 (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

North Atlantic Treaty Article

There's a lot of information that's been processed in the North Atlantic Treaty article that might do well to be here as well, but I don't know the best way to go about including it all, or what should be included here versus the NATO history article. E.g., the events listed as subsections under North Atlantic Treaty#Article 5 or the timeline from the table in North Atlantic Treaty#Article 4 or the intraparty disputes under North Atlantic Treaty#Articles 7 and 8. At the very least, the Syrian Civil War and subsequent Operation Active Fence missions should probably be mentioned or the ongoing Greco-Turkish Aegean dispute. Fephisto (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

Change map of countries in Europe to include Sweden and Finland as they have joined NATO.

Source: https://editorials.voa.gov/a/u-s-formally-approves-finland-and-sweden-s-nato-membership/6713334.html/ SirSkinner (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done: According to your source "The remaining NATO nations have not yet ratified the two countries' accession to NATO."—Anita5192 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

NATO

FINLAND and SWEDEN have already joined NATO 112.79.72.235 (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

They haven't, because Turkey and Hungary have not yet ratified. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

There is a country in South America coloured green to indicate nato membership. Mistake? 72.139.196.244 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's French Guiana, it's a French possession and therefore part of NATO. Acroterion (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Article 6 specifically limits NATO defense responsibilities to north of the Tropic of Cancer. Hence de facto it is not part of NATO, other than being part of a NATO member. 178.78.215.162 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify - French Guiana is a full part of NATO (as “France”) but not covered by NATO’s Article 6 mutual defense clause. For example, Hawaii is structured similarly. 2600:1008:B1AA:8559:550D:562E:776:E5A0 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Nato Article omission

Regarding :

Putin asked U.S. President Joe Biden for legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward or put "weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory."

Article proceeds with a reply from Stoltenburg apparently to a different question 🤔

Should it not be President Bidens response that is published here? I understand Biden did in fact reply. Be1968 (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The addition of Finland, and Sweden necessary

The addition of the countries of Finland, and Sweden are long overdue. They were admitted into NATO in mid-2022. (As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.) Oceanic84 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the article, they have not been admitted yet. The article will be updated when they are admitted and someone can cite a dependable source.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

introduction

Asia is missing at the country allocation 95.112.75.90 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What exactly is missing and from which section? What is the "country allocation"? - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

There is a Wiki page for the NATO motto "Animus in consulendo liber" (Latin: "A mind unfettered in deliberation"), but it is not linked or referenced anywhere in the main page for NATO. I am proposing to list the motto in the right side panel, underneath "Anthem". 50.221.62.202 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I have done it. Here is the source. Fephisto (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Small Grammatical Error

I believe there may be a minor grammatical error under the "History" section. In the second last sentence of the paragraph talking about Russia's annexation of Crimea, it states "In March 2022, NATO leaders met at Brussels for an extraordinary summit which also involved Group of Seven and European Union leaders."

I'm pretty certain there's meant to be a "the" before "Group of Seven". Mindos2055 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda

More out of curiosity, is Bermuda apart of NATO? StevoLaker (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Bermuda is a British Overseas territory, so yes, but not as a sovereign country. ― TUNA × 18:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Map

We need a new nap that includes Finland. Znuddel (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

On my way to do it! Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit: apparently it has already been done and reverted yesterday? Not sure about the exact situation. Also, should we update the lead to add that Finland joined NATO? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe the map update was too soon yesterday..? Znuddel (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Membership number

Someone needs to update it from 30 to 31 in accordance with the accompanying membership map and the linked membership article. I’d do it myself, but the page is locked. Sodari (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Nato now has 31 members with Finland,not 30. Text needs update 2A0A:A543:69A:0:9826:CFD7:8A61:46EB (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (2)

As of April 4th, Finland has become a member of NATO.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-set-join-nato-historic-shift-while-sweden-waits-2023-04-04/

https://apnews.com/article/finland-nato-hungary-turkey-membership-accession-13f879ea8e3a2458dfa22e59cea04e3f AndriyYatsykiv (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Finland is already added to the member's list as a member. If you would like to change something else, please provide more context by constructing the edit request in the form of "Change X to Y". EnormityOP (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fix for obsolete source [163] (Finland Joining NATO)

A current source to replace obsolete source [163] in the article:

Finland officially joined NATO on 4 April 2023.^{[obsolete source]}

would be:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm

> Member countries

> Last updated: 04 Apr. 2023 15:06

> ... Finland deposited its Instrument of Accession to the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 2023, becoming NATO’s 31st member country.

Please update the obsolete source. Rocketwidget (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete map

The map in the beginning of the Membership section (NATO partnerships.svg) is obsolete and should be replaced to one including Finland. Znuddel (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (3)

Change photo "1024px-North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_(orthographic_projection).svg.png" to include Finland as a member CubusXD (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2023 (4)

Under ‘enlargement’ subtitle - Change “NATO currently has two candidate countries that are in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sweden.” To “NATO currently has one candidate country in the process of joining the alliance: Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Calcorps (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? Is Sweden not a candidate country anymore? Actualcpscm (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the Tropic of Cancer be added to the map?

If the security agreements only extend to territories north of the ToC, should that latitude be added to the global map? I thought to ask at the Map Lab. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Apparent technical problem with the map

The map doesn't show Finland for me when the SVG map is rendered at certain resolutions. Right now, I have this problem at 240 × 240, 480 × 480 and 1024 × 1024 pixels. I have tried it on several computers with the same result. Does anyone else experience this problem and has an idea on what the cause might be? Thanks. Schweinchen (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works when files are replaced under the same name can mean your browser may not realize a new version is available, so be sure to clear your personal web browser cache. You can also add a WP:PURGE gadget under your user preferences, and purging the page here and on the commons could fix it if you do think the issue is on Wikimedia's side. Even if it is, I wouldn't worry too much, this will always fix itself. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Try pressing "CTRL+F5" while you're on the page. Does it show up after you've done this? Fephisto (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. CTRL+F5 fixed it. Thank you. Schweinchen (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Np. Keep in mind that this trick works on a lot of other sites too, if you're supposed to see something that someone says should be on the site and you don't see it. What CTRL+F5 does is clear your browser's cache of the page and then refreshes it. Fephisto (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

Hello, I would like to suggest adding the following text to the "History" section of the article:

"On April 4th, 2023, Finland officially became the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This came after Finland's instrument of accession was deposited with the United States government at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. The Accession Protocol was signed by all NATO Allies on July 5th, 2022, and subsequently ratified by all 30 national parliaments."

This information is supported by a reliable source published on NATO's official website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_213448.htm

I believe this update is important for readers to know about NATO's current membership status. Thank you for your consideration.

-EdrianJade EdrianJade (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The History section does not outline a history of membership, so I think this suggestion would be out of place there. Maybe it would fit better elsewhere in the article? I'd also like to remind you of the relevant copyright policies. Generally speaking, very close paraphrasing is not allowed. The best way to avoid accidental copyright violations is to write text yourself from scratch. Thank you, and happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my edit request and for your attention to detail in reviewing it. I understand that the proposed addition may not fit seamlessly within the current structure of the article's "History" section.

I appreciate your reminder about copyright policies, and I will take great care to avoid any accidental violations in my future editing.

Once again, thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. EdrianJade (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

About the map

On the map of NATO on this article in the infobox you can see the border of Transylvania in Romania. Why? MeManBlaze (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you link to which image? In this image? I don't see any border around Transylvania. I can see some maps maybe have a border around Transnistria in Moldova, although I can't find any maps with that, either. Fephisto (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I meant the map that you sent. If you zoom in on it you can see it. I see it when I zoom in about 280% on the map, on the link. I did notice it without zooming in on the article though. Like here https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/603624028237725730/1097602935850012804/image.png

Sorry for the discord link, I didn't know how else to send it with a link lol. But in this picture I zoomed in, and you can see the border. MeManBlaze (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Good eye, looks to me like that line was added earlier this month on the version that added Finland. Someone want to try adding Finland to the older version again? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 02:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, now I think I see it. It's the really REALLY faint green line? Fephisto (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, haha. Maybe it's weird that I saw that, but still, lmao. Faint white/green line. MeManBlaze (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Delusion23 fixed it. Fephisto (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request

I have created a page about NATO's global partners. It is a relatively new page, but I hope to improve it, and that others will, in the course of time.

Under NATO#Membership, all partnership levels are linked to their respective pages. My request is for "Global Partners" to be linked to its new page.

XA1dUXvugi (talk) XA1dUXvugi (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (diff); also wikilinked it in the "Partnerships with third countries" section. DanCherek (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add DIANA as a new NATO Body

In the article about NATO, it lists several NATO bodies, including the text below. As of June, 2023, there is a new NATO body called DIANA, the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic. You can find out more at the DIANA website. Can you please update the article on NATO to reflect this. Thanks! James

The organizations and agencies of NATO include: Headquarters for the NATO Support Agency will be in Capellen Luxembourg (site of the current NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency – NAMSA). The NATO Communications and Information Agency Headquarters will be in Brussels, as will the very small staff which will design the new NATO Procurement Agency. A new NATO Science and Technology Organization will be created before July 2012, consisting of Chief Scientist, a Programme Office for Collaborative S&T, and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC).[citation needed] The NATO Standardization Agency became the NATO Standardization Office (NSO) in July 2014. Jamesalanwhite (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing the purpose of NATO declared in 1952 by Hastings Lionel Ismay: "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

There is an important message missing about Hastings Lionel Ismay, who accepted the position but resigned after only six months to become the first Secretary General of NATO in 1952. During his tenure as Secretary General, Ismay is credited with being the first person to articulate the purpose of NATO as "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." This saying has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO. 67.180.19.54 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Finland has joined it after the turkish parlament ratified it Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for it? If so, please post it here.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I appear Finland has not yet joined Nato according to the Guardian.--とんずらする豚 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

After the ratification by Turkey Finnland has now the right to apply for the final admittance (e.g. on the July NATO summit). --2A02:908:C38:D3A0:326:AC30:2F1C:FB27 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland

In section Membership Finland is not included, and not highlighted dark green on any maps of this article yet Dogyuîgeghgd (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland is not a member yet, only after the instrument of accession is received by Blinken in about one hour. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but it’s only an hour from now. Finland is already listed as a member in the member list article and maps. Barring an alien attack or something there is nothing that’s going to prevent it becoming official. May as well leave the change to 31 as is. Sodari (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Denmark has revoked large part of special agreement with NATO

On this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Special_arrangements

We learn that scandinavian countries have special agreements, but in Denmark we actually revoked most of ours by national referendum back in 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Danish_European_Union_opt-out_referendum

I don't know how relevant is it for the larger picture of the article, just thought I'd point it out and see what you guys thought. 87.73.64.98 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems that last year's Danish referendum was about the defence policy of the European Union, not about NATO... Why do you think it would be relevant in the article about NATO? LongLivePortugal (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

I uploaded a new map to indicate pending and aspiring members. I now need a color key. Anyone willing to add one? JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 00:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you post here a link to the new map, please?—Anita5192 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's on the article. You may have to do a hard refresh. JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to the map you recently added to Bosnia and Herzegovina–NATO relations, you should be discussing this on that talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

The alt text of the image on line 330 (below):

Protestors at a February 2022 rally against Russia's invasion of Ukraine march past the statue of Tsar Alexander II in Senate Square in Helsinki, Finland

should read domed white church instead of white domed church.

REF: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/adjectives-order 82.173.107.220 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The word domed here is not a shape adjective, but a type adjective (similar to the example four-sided in the link that you posted). This is clearly visible if you look at usage online; see: "domed white church" (68 hits) vs "white domed church" (14,000 hits) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nonsensical statements

"The alliance has increased its NATO Response Force deployments in Eastern Europe" - when? It has increased them many times, since e.g. in 2023 they are not the same as in 1953. Moreover, it was a counterforce not just to the USSR as stated, but to the Warsaw Pact as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth adding. In any section: by decision of NATO, thousands of innocent people were killed in Europe and the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.167.146 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Explain this

Can somebody explain why Finland and Sweden are not dark green on the map?130.41.62.253 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sweden has yet to finish their entry into NATO, but Finland does appear dark green already. WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

NATO member states make up 956m people (12% of the worlds population) and 16% of the worlds habitable land area. Asto77 (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nobody (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

just wanted to add the sentence; so people can see what % of humanity is NATO Asto77 (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

"Membership" Section (Portugal is missing from the description of the 31 countries)

"Membership" Section (Portugal is missing from the description of the 31 countries). The description and the map are correct in showing 31 members. But after Poland there should be Portugal on the list. 46.189.238.123 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. (Hohum ^@) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Article 6 Map

Could it be helpful to add a map of Article 6, such as this one? 2600:1002:B012:ABB2:9554:4E1C:1C34:6CC3 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Putin's sneaky edit

After just having watched the rather recent interview with Putin, this final part of the lead sounds like it could have been sneaked into the article by Putin himself. It indirectly puts the blame on NATO for tensions with Russia (Wikipedia:Undue weight). And unlike almost everything in the lead, this part doesn't have a reference. It sounds like weasel words to me.

Enlargement has led to tensions with non-member Russia, one of the twenty additional countries participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme. Another nineteen countries are involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes with NATO.

Torr3 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Torr3, according to WP:LEAD, it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead, so there is nothing unusual about that. I see no glaring problems with the sentences you quoted. It is indisputable that tensions exist between NATO and Russia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I figured since it's a contentious topic, it must be especially important with citations. The sentences I quoted seems to me like an ad-hoc statement to make Nato appear more culpable than Russia for their conflict. Torr3 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sweden in NATO

Could someone with access update the article to reflect Sweden joining NATO. TheOrigamiAnalysis (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

They aren't officially in yet but we'll add them once they are. Tuna^VeniVidi_Vici 16:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The top of the article says they "added new members... most recently when Sweden joined the alliance on 26 February 2024"... Shouldn't someone either remove that until its officially in, or add it to the list of members? Otherwise, it's contradictory. Ära Śävûlø (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Though some news outlets are calling it official there is still one last step. A NPR story says that it is "Sweden is now close to becoming NATO's 32nd member". Elsewhere I have read it become official when notice is given to the U.S. State Department. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

Hungary ratifies Sweden's entry Octilllion (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Not officially a member yet. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 Suggestion

Change

"NATO is a deterrent intergovernmental military alliance".

to

"NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance".

Calling it a "deterrent" is unsourced and at the very least WP:UNDUE for the first sentence. As far as I can tell it got shoehorned into the article without consensus. 22090912l (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and French Guiana

Why are Puerto Rico and French Guiana in dark green? I thought that there were outside the Treaty, since they are south of the Tropic of Cancer (and Guiana not being an island.). Alexander K. Cox (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

These areas are outside the mutual defense area defined by the NATo charter, but they are still integral territory of member states. An attack on these areas does not invoke the treaty obligations. This also applies to other overseas territories not shown on the map, such as French Polynesia, Guam, or the Falkland Islands. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweden in NATO

Sweden has joined NATO earlier today after finally being accepted by Hungary.

This article needs to be updated accordingly to appropriate with reality. Please remain focused and quick. 87.120.102.13 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

From NATO’s website: “7. Upon depositing their instruments of accession with the US State Department, invitees formally become NATO members”

There’s no doubt Sweden will complete this last step, but they’re not an official member till then. Just one bit of bureaucracy left. Radio Adept (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Even after depositing the "instruments of accession" with the U.S. State Department, there will be a formal ceremony in Brussels to make it all official. It might be worth looking at how all this played out with Finland in the talk page archives. But don't worry, Wikipedia won't miss it. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The ceremony is recognition, it doesnt confer anything. 2001:48F8:3022:75D:5A12:BD0B:AF56:9919 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The ceremony will likely be a mirror to Finland's last year. It'll be at the NATO headquarters outside Brussels, and a representative of Sweden, probably Foreign Minister Tobias Billström, but maybe PM Ulf Kristersson, will hand over a fancy folder to a representative of the U.S. State Department, probably Anthony Blinken, while a representative of NATO, probably Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, will acknowledge the receipt. That's the process, recognition is what confers anything. Let me blow your mind though: It's all ceremony, the whole premise of the organization is built on ceremony! Finland's ceremony happened to be timed for NATO's 74th birthday, 4 April 2023, and while Sweden's could happen in March, I wouldn't be shocked if it takes Orbán a few weeks to do his formal submission to the U.S. Dept of State so that Sweden joins on NATO's 75th birthday on 4 April 2024. But until then, it is inaccurate to include Sweden as a "member" on this article or related ones. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Update, looks like noon CET on Monday, 11 March 2024 is when they'll making it official. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Whenever someone has added Sweden recently, I keep checking the news to confirm status. It gets mildly tiresome ;-) CAVincent (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

"Finland is the newest member; it joined on 4 April 2023, spurred on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine" is no longer an accurate statement as Sweden, for similar reasons as Finland, has joined the alliance on 3/7/2024 after Turkiye and Hungary dropped their dissent against it. S22N (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

F-16 "taking off" is incorrect

It is landing. If you open the Operation Deliberate Force page, it is correct. If anybody needs proof, the air brakes are deployed(open). Tb-3000 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 17:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024 (2)

Under the "Membership" section, it still mentions NATO having thirty-one members three different times. This should be changed to saying thirty-two instead:

"NATO has thirty-one members, all in Europe and North America"

"Twelve of these thirty-one are original members"

"Membership has subsequently grown to 31 through several enlargements"

In addition to this, it mentions Finland being the newest member under the Enlargement subsection of Membership. This should be changed to Sweden. Lowkschwonz (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 17:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird border in Romania on the map

I checked the new map and saw that an old, albeit very nitpicky problem, is back again (which was fixed in the last version). There's some kind of a white border in Romania showing Transylvania. I know it's very very nitpicky, but I just had to mention it, haha. Seems to be something with the base map

You can see what I mean by just zooming in on Romania on the map (linked the map here for ease of access). There's a clear outline of Transylvania for some reason. https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_%28orthographic_projection%29_in_NATO_blue.svg

Once again, I know that it's very nitpicky but I don't know why it's there, lol. Thanks! (Also, there's some green colored parts at Alaska) But thanks! MeManBlaze (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024 (3)

=== Enlargement === {{Main|Enlargement of NATO}} {{stack|[[File:History of NATO enlargement.svg|thumb|upright=1.0|right|NATO has added 15 new members since [[German reunification]] and the end of the [[Cold War]].|alt=A map of Europe with countries labelled in shades of blue, green, and yellow based on when they joined NATO.]]}}

Sweden has joined. Can you please change "15" to "16"? Human Transistor (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Membership map needs updating

The map in the Membership section needs to be updated to show Sweden as a member.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Already updated. If you are not seeing it, hit Ctrl+F5 to force reload the page. Human Transistor (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Map not updated

This map is not updated, can anyone rectify it ?

This map in the NATO wiki page is not updated as for March 08 2024 1109hrs GMT +8.00. Please rectify it.

BlackSun3988 (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See Membership map needs updating section above.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It was updated yesterday. It may be your browser's cache, hit Ctrl+F5 to reload the page. Human Transistor (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. That did it. Thanks.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

NATO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Editor added {{GAR request}} tag on t/p last month. 2006 listing has valid cleanup banners and citation issues. Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Why was this listed for review, who performed the review, and who decided "not enough improvement"? What does "not enough improvement" even mean? What did the article need to improve? Which specific sections should we be looking at? I don't even understand the English in this section, what does "unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" mean? You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikiProject. This is terrible! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Patrickneil, this was listed for review because the article "has valid cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GA criteria: An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ... All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph.

I decided "not enough improvement", because the article still has "cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GAR instructions: After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.

The sections you should be looking at are the ones with the "cleanup banners and citation issues" i.e. Kosovo intervention, Membership, and Structure. "Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" means that the article is well-updated, which not an issue but is unusual. Are any other of my English phrases unclear?

"You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikProject. This is terrible!" This is a verifiably incorrect claim: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NATO, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 170, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, User talk:Morgoonki, User talk:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com, User talk:FutureTrillionaire, and User talk:H1nkles. I would appreciate if you would strike this unjustified accusation, Patrickneil.

You have reverted my closure of this discussion against the GAR instructions: A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect...Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page. Am I to understand that you wish to improve the article back to GAR standard? In the future, please leave a note on the relevant GA reassessment page; that would save us all a lot of bother. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that. I'll work on finding citations today, or removing the unsourced claims, but "Not enough improvement" is not a GA review.

How on earth did you pick those editors to notify? User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com has 14 edits total, from two days in 2001, none of which have anything to do with this topic. User:H1nkles and User:FutureTrillionaire have both been inactive for around four years, and again, have never edited this article. And User:Morgoonki was only active for a month, just enough to engage in a pro-Vladimir Putin edit war. And when you say "Editor added {{GAR request}} tag" again, I have to question how much you looked into this, because by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers.

Here is a list of active editors. If you want good faith here, the best I can give you is that, in this specific scenario, you weren't doing some basic due diligence with this GAR and the users involved. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 19:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The GAR script automatically notifies all previous GA reviewers (if it can find any), in addition to previous reassessers, Patrickneil. I then notified six WikiProjects, in addition to linking on the the article talk page (and tidying that up, incidentally). I don't particularly know why User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com was notified, however.

"There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that." I ... did?

"by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers" I don't see anything in there that requires the word editor to be put in scare quotes? If they want to gnome around, I don't see why they should be denigrated for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be using a GAR script then. What percent of the article did you read prior to delisting? What percent of the talk page and it's archive? Which of the five Template:Cns did you feel were the issue that put the article over the top? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I read all of the article personally Patrickneil, hence I could say "no update needed". Same could be said for the talk page (diff of my archiving), even though that is not necessary. If you look at the structure section, you will see the citations needed banner; a large percentage of this section is uncited and grounds for delisting. Is anything else unclear? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is no where near Good article status. Only 5000 words on a topic this important? There is a massive lack of deep coverage. Every source, but one, in the Works cited is cited only a single time. There is a large Further reading which doubtlessly has content that should be in the main article. There are at least 30 sources published by NATO itself instead using any of the works cited or the vast amount of scholarship on this topic no where in the article. The Military operations section is a mess, with rambling paragraphs and no clear division of weight on its respective subsections. I see numerous topics in List of NATO operations not even mentioned.

This article became good status in 2006, when standards for GAs were considerably lower and more lenient. It has since had three article reassessment requests. Any article with that much repeated concern over its quality will need a substantial reconfiguration to remain good status, and not just end up at GAR again next year. An obvious delist Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's at least something we can work on. I'll say that since 2006, the subarticles History of NATO and Enlargement of NATO have been created out of those sections when they became too sprawling. I might quibble with describing nine items in Further reading as "large", and that, yes, more citations than I would like are sourced to NATO itself. Those do tend to be uncontroversial statements, to source things more routine like "the Chair of the Military Committee is the head of the Military Committee." I'm not sure which operation from List of NATO operations needs to be added, but I'm happy to help if there is something major that's getting left out of the current sections and subsections. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Operation Display Deterrence is mentioned and I really think Resolute Support Mission and International Security Assistance Force should be separate. These last two being conflated into one section makes both of their scopes confusing, and disrupts the otherwise chronological layout of the operations.

It is not the exact size of the further reading section itself, or specifically the preponderance of NATO citations which worries me, it is simply the lack of academic scholarship used in general. (As I mentioned) the single citations from the Works cited section are particularly concerning, and representative of this article's biggest fault. The thing with uncontroversial statements is that sure, we could cite them to NATO, but wouldn't it be better to cite them to reliable independent sources? Either way, the Military operations section is really the core of the article, and what needs to be better sourced. The Gulf of Aden anti-piracy section, for instance, is solely cited to NATO, which is certainly inappropriate – Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear that. I do though want to keep this is as an overview article. I think that's always been an element here, that the scope can't go into too much detail given the 75 years of institutional history that need to fit in its sections. We do have these two reservoirs of sources, published international policy books and news articles about a NATO-related event that just happened somewhere, the trouble being that neither type of source is actually all that great at being a source for the basic questions readers come here for, like, "what is NATO?" or "why is NATO expanding?", that the article tries to give answers for.

Lastly, if I am a bit defensive, it might be somewhat that there is a literal cyberarmy out to manipulate Wikipedia, and we've been dealing with it for years on this topic. The most recent GAR request, last year, was because a user wanted to include a chunk what I see as pro-Russian propaganda. They were asked politely to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The two previous GARs were 14 years ago, all three have, I would note, resulted in speedily keeping it as a GA. I'm well aware the article needs attention, perhaps WP:PR is more what the article needs or at least a thorough section by section review, because there are large chunks that are at a high quality, but other parts that let it down. It's just difficult to see almost 20 years of maintenance here boiled down to three words, "not enough improvement." -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your defensiveness is certainly understandable. But I'm fairly certain where Airship is coming from. The GA process & community was only recently reinvigorated and prior to which although the standards had risen, older GAs had not. Thus, there is a lot of cleanup now taking place with older GAs, huge numbers of which are far below standards. See here for instance, where one author of 100+ GAs was discovered to frequently be using copyrighted material. Certainly the NATO article is nothing like the articles delisted by the now-banned user, but its importance as a topic gives it further scrutiny, since its so important to get right! Aza24 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that all the citation needed instances have been resolved. The article is a bit on the short side, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - there are plenty of links to other articles that cover sections in greater depth, like Structure of NATO and Enlargement of NATO. I could understand the argument that the main article could use a bit more material, but for such a complex topic I think it's better to keep a relatively concise article and allow readers easy access to more in-depth and narrowly focused articles. To pick a topic I'm intimately familiar with, Train was promoted to GA in 2021 and is currently at 4273 words, 27331 characters, and I'd argue it could be expanded but is still comprehensive enough and gives sufficient links to other articles that it meets the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this concept of an overview article. It's also better in my view to keep it this way because it's easier to update, change, or remove supporting articles than it is to hack through a massive parent article. So long as the citation issues have been addressed and there's solid overview information, I see no real reason to delist. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I maintain a habit of avoiding closing GARS where I have opined, but I do not see a consensus to delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NATO Member Territory outside Aritcle 5

Upon reviewing the map representation of NATO members, I noticed that territories like Hawaii (USA) and others such as French Guiana (France) and the Falkland Islands (UK) are depicted similarly to mainland territories. While these territories are integral parts of NATO countries, there exists a significant nuance concerning Article 5's mutual defense commitments that might not be immediately apparent from the map.

Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO's foundation, stipulating that an armed attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all members. However, the application of Article 5 is geographically limited.

Specifically, it applies to the territories of member states in North America, Europe, the Turkish Straits, and the Mediterranean Sea islands. This definition excludes certain territories like Hawaii, which, despite being a part of the United States, falls outside the geographic scope of Article 5's mutual defense commitment.

Given this, I propose that the map could benefit from a visual differentiation between territories where NATO's Article 5 commitment is applicable and those where it is not. This adjustment would not only provide clarity but also align with the factual geographical limitations of Article 5, enhancing the map's informational precision. Implementing such a distinction could prevent misunderstandings about the exact scope of NATO's mutual defense obligations and accurately represent the geographical coverage of Article 5. Would it be possible to revisit the map's design to reflect these critical distinctions?

- Atfyfe (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose replacing a simple map of member states with a map of only the territory covered by Article 6. The limitations of Article 6 are way too complicated to explain in a map in a way that most readers would quickly and easily understand. Indeed, your description of the geographic limits of NATO is also slightly incorrect as to these nuances. In fact, because you mentioned it, I just checked and this article currently contains two references to Article 6 which are also slightly wrong on the details. (It's late, I'm tired and lazy, so I'm not fixing them at least tonight; it's largely nitpicky stuff e.g. nothing in the Pacific is covered, whether north or south of the Tropic of Cancer.) CAVincent (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)