Talk:Montenegro–NATO relations

Crystal ball
So, not only is the last sentence in the introduction an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL, it is simply inaccurate. This is stated later in this very article. The sentence originally said "The country is expected to complete the accession process and join NATO by 2012." before a series of minor changes over the years. There may a possibility that it will join this year but there is also a possibility that NATO will be dissolved in the next six weeks and that isn't written anywhere. The fact that it's possible does not make it notable and having it in the introduction, in my opinion, implies that it is likely. Numerous attempts have been made to remove the sentence over the years but have been reverted. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:CBALL? What it says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation".  The sentence in question says: "The country could join NATO as early as 2014."  This is sourced to an article by B92 which says Montenegro "could become a full-fledged member of NATO in 2014".  Hence the sentence clearly isn't "unverifiable speculation".  It is an accurate reflection of what sources say about the subject.  Will they become members in 2014?  Who knows.  But sources say they could become a member in 2014.  As recently as a few weeks ago we have sources saying Montenegro thinks they could be offerer membership this year: "Montenegro expects that NATO will register the achieved progress and that this will result in an invitation to join the Summit in Wales, said Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic", "Montenegro expects to be invited to join the western military alliance in September", "Montenegro might get a membership invitation".  I think having a sentence in the lead about the possible date that the subject of the article could take place is quite notable.
 * And if you can find a reliable source saying that NATO could dissolve in the next six weeks, then you might consider adding that info to NATO, but I don't see the relevance of that to this article. TDL (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ratification
What exactly has been ratified? The listed countries no doubt ratified the treaty, but did they ratify the Montenegro accession process separately as well? Lastdingo (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Accession of Montenegro to NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111007064200/http://www.pobjeda.co.me/citanje.php?datum=2009-01-11&id=156376 to http://www.pobjeda.co.me/citanje.php?datum=2009-01-11&id=156376
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727190208/http://promjene.org/saopstenja-za-javnost/pzp-trazi-da-se-izjasni-narod.html to http://promjene.org/saopstenja-za-javnost/pzp-trazi-da-se-izjasni-narod.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Ratification Dates
Some of the member states are said to have ratified the Protocol for Montenegro to accede, but no source is provided. Where is this information coming from? Lambsbridge (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We have 19 states in the list so far,but one hour ago the president of Montenegro said in his big press-conference,that so far 17 states have ratified. So what the hell is going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.29.184 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An article on Voice of America (not the most unbiased source, I know), stated today that there have been 19 approvals so far. http://www.voanews.com/a/montenegro-nato-united-states-senate-russia/3657386.html Jurryaany (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

6 states still must ratify! in Portugal the president will sign the protocol in the coming 48 hours,till thursday. In Germany the Bundesrat (Senate) will ratify on friday morning. The USA,Canada,Netherlands and Spain will also ratify in the next three February-weeks! In 3 weeks it will be over! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.87.228 (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what I'm getting at - there's still no agreement over who has ratified and when, and yet no one can be bothered to add citations to the article. Contrast with Moldova–European Union Association Agreement or Unified Patent Court, which have citations for every step of the process.  I don't even think we need that much, just reliable citations on dates of the deposit of ratification instruments. Lambsbridge (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And does Montenegro itself have to ratify the accession protocol as well? If not, it should be removed from the table. Benda (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it does need to ratify it in the Parliament, after all the member states have finished with ratification. Sideshow Bob 08:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, i tell you the actual situation. In the US,Canada,Spain and the Netherlands the parliaments must ratify the protocol. All 4 will do it until late march, in the next 5 weeks. In Germany Miss Merkel must sign the already ratified protocol,she will do it very soon,because it only takes a few seconds to sign a sheet of paper. Montenegro will ratify it in early april and on may 24, during the NATO-summit in Brussels Montenegro will officially join NATO. Sascha K.,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.87.228 (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please help me. This site says that Spain hasn't finished ratification because the Senate hasn't voted yet, but my relevant edit was cancelled. Вечный подмастерье (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)  -

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Montenegro–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316155431/http://www.gov.me/eng/mininos/vijesti.php?akcija=rubrika&rubrika=16 to http://www.gov.me/eng/mininos/vijesti.php?akcija=rubrika&rubrika=16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614172501/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/27/content_7150443.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/27/content_7150443.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209180451/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/60927/montenegro-hands-over-application-for-nato-s-map.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/60927/montenegro-hands-over-application-for-nato-s-map.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722171733/http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_oktobar09.pdf to http://www.cedem.me/fajlovi/editor_fajlovi/istrazivanja/CEDEM_oktobar09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:13, 5 February 2018 (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 20:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)