Talk:Finland–NATO relations

Member state relations
Ok you two, that's quite enough back and forth on this without discussion. Work out an agreement through discussion, not via attempting to communicate with edit summaries. Any more edit warring will be looked upon poorly. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I stand by my latest edit summary. If I could change just one thing, I'd put ", as it states," between "but remember" and "this section is about FINNISH RELATIONS WITH member states". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 revert by me is considered edit warring? At any rate, I still think a section about Finnish relations with NATO member states should include every member state, even if it leads to red links. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone did anything wrong, just that it was headed that way. Discussion is the way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. We’ve each stated our positions, but will need input from other people to figure this out. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I created redirect pages. I think this should solve the issue. Hetsre (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like how the claim that Montenegro supported Finland's NATO bid is unsourced, but it is something (as is the date these two became an item), so I can't deny it's better than the way we had. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Not moved SNOW withdrawal by nom - this proposal clearly isn't finding consensus, and there is no reason to keep it open while the article is on the front page. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland–NATO relations → Accession of Finland to NATO – The accession of Finland to NATO becomes official this week. The majority of the content in the article is about the accession, and the pre-1989 content on relations all fits in "background". Walt Yoder (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No NATO has 23 similar "relations" articles, with members and with others, all with their own little stories and areas of focus. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Country-NATO relations seems to be the standard title for these articles. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Country - NATO relations is a well established title over a long period of time. Furthermore, the existing title is very comprehensive, the page has past, current, and will have future relation developments between Finland and the NATO. Pann20125536 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article isn't solely on the accession of Finland, and also the name reflects the standard for these kind of articles. ✨  4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   10:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, however the Ascension of Finland to NATO page should be made it’s own thing and not a redirect. Spagheditor (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. How about Finland in NATO? Finland has just joined NATO as of this reply, and this format exists in Turkey in NATO. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Finland in NATO, I was going to propose it. It already exists in Turkey in NATO and Romania in NATO. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, because Turkey in NATO and Romania in NATO are pages, so the pattern should continue. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 13:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Finland in NATO – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Finland in NATO Not only will it keep consistency, it will also potentially inspire new "X in NATO" articles to be written GigaDerp (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Finland in NATO Outside of the other country-nato relations articles, I couldn't find from a quick search other articles entitled such a way when dealing with member states and their relations with the organization. Yeoutie (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, I support this name.  ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️  📧  ✍️ 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this article is not solely about the ascension of Finland into NATO. However, an article can be made about it. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 13:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose However, I do support creating an Accession of Finland article, in its own right, if it meets the EnormityOP (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per opposers. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above arguments. Yeoutie (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A balance could be something along the lines of "Pre-ascension Finland-NATO relations"? Pigmattmc (talk) 17:01, 4 April 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.
 * Comment Perhaps there should be a standard set for the title of this article that every NATO state has. Would suggest [x] in NATO but [x]-NATO relations is also fine. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Guys, this discussion is closed. Chime in on the other one at Talk: Croatia-NATO relations, which affects this page. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect poll statistics
In the table "Polls on Finnish membership of NATO", the first three rows make no sense as their poll totals don't come anywhere close to 100%:

- Taloustutkimus 12 Nov - 22 Dec 1995: Support 17%, Oppose 81%, Neutral or DK 24%, total 122%.

- Taloustutkimus 26 Feb - 14 Mar 1996: Support 16%, Oppose 81%, Neutral or DK 23%, total 120%.

- Taloustutkimus 17-27 Oct 1997: Support 17%, Oppose 79%, Neutral or DK 24%, total 120%.

These numbers are obviously bogus. They are also impossible to verify as the links to their sources have rotted away, including the archived versions. Should we just remove them? 195.197.254.3 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch, removed. Verkkouutiset did not even exist before September 1996. Prolog (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Croatia–NATO relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)