Talk:NATO/Archive 1

Spelling
NATO historically uses British spelling as a standard. It is an "organization". It deals with issues of "defence". It has "internship programmes". There have been numerous edits changing the spelling of this article, which have all been reverted. The spelling comment in the source code, which has been removed and put back several times, was intended to prevent such editing. SpNeo 02:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that changing the spelling from UK to US is an ongoing problem, just look at all the "rv; this article uses UK spellings." comments in the page's history. Magna Carta has a similar problem, only this time it is with people adding "the" before "Magna Carta". The problem there seems to have been solved by adding:
 * As there is no definite article in Latin, the document is usually referred to as simply "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta."

to the very top of the article. Would something similar be worth a try here? I sugest:
 * This Wikipedia article uses British spelling because of NATO's historical use of this style as a standard.

Just an idea - and I may be off my head on this one. Any comments? Andreww 10:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article uses British spelling because of NATO's historical use of this style as a standard. linking British spelling to British English and it is a great idea that i wouyld support, SqueakBox 14:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have added the text and a note on the subject - lets see what happens. Andreww 00:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I know there are a lot of nationalistic copyeditors on Wikipedia, but the note was excessive. Commentary meant solely for editors should not be the very first thing the average reader sees;, ****EMPHASIZED**** if necessary, ought to be enough. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The note was also for readers of the article. Do you realy want sombody to think that your work is incorrect just because you have followed a convention that they do not know about? You should expect to see this sort of comment in the introduction to a book that you can not edit... so why not here? Andreww 20:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Some explanation is certainly appropriate, but remember that organisation seems perfectly natural to anyone who's used to British English spelling. I think the endnote is a good way to handle it: anyone who wonders about the spelling can read the full explanation, but such a minor issue (and, despite the inordinate attention it gets around here, it's really not that big a deal) doesn't intrude into the introduction. It might be made more explicit, something like "The North Atlantic Treaty Organisationsee note on spelling (NATO), sometimes called. . .". &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv)  18:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the header we have at present is problematic. As information for a non-editing reader, it's not a sufficiently important fact to be emphasised in a header for the article, even before the definition of NATO itself. For an editor, it is normal to put editor-oriented instructions either in the Wikicode as a comment, or on the Talk page. Since we already have comments for editors in the Wikicode, and a note for the reader as an end note, I suggest we remove the "this article uses British spelling" header. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How about sticking it visibly at ther top of this page? I agree it is not appropriate in the article, SqueakBox 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, too, if there's a problem with people misadvertantly changing the spelling to US style. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would argue that people reading the article are thinking "Thats odd, this 'encyclopedia' I'm reading has spelling errors in it. It must be wrong. There must be many errors. I'm going to read a better encyclopedia insted.". It just happens that it's aa wiki that they are reading so some small number of these people go on and correct the error. We should seek to correct the impression that the page is wrong, not try to intercept the small number of people who will try to change the page. I don't think adding a note on the talk page will help with this, and adding a note at the top of the main page is rather like puting the limitations of a study, or defing terms, or noting odd spelling conventions in a preface but if you anybody has a better idea I'm all ears. Andreww 07:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Grrr...you seem to be saying that UK spelling is such an abnormal spelling that it needs to be loudly apologised for, otherwise the reader will think it's a mistake! Look, UK spelling and US spelling are both accepted on Wikipedia. If a reader thinks that UK spelling is a spelling mistake, and hence the encyclopedia is rubbish, then that's his ignorance, and not our problem. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that some readers clearly feel that UK spelling is such an abnormal spelling that they do think that its a mistake. We know this because a small fraction of those readers happen to change the text. It is our problem if this is the case, we should be writing for our readers, not for our own gratification. To blame our reader for ignorance when we are writing a encyclopedia is odd to say the least. Andreww 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, if some readers feel UK spelling is an abnormal spelling, then it's their problem, full stop (period). In this article, we are educating people about NATO, not about varieties of English spelling. I'm offended by the idea that UK spelling is something that has to be explained because people might think it's a mistake. Imagine if such a header was added to a page with US spelling! By policy, every page in Wikipedia uses a single consistent spelling, normally either the UK or the US variety (there may be others, I don't know). This page does not need special attention drawn to the fact that it uses one type of spelling. The inline comments and footnote are quite sufficient. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am with Matt on this one. Having the encyclopedia almost anyone can edit doesn't mean everyone automatically knows how to. We cater to that by not being harsh to the newbies when they make mistakes. There is a world of difference between catering to our readers as readers and catering to them as potential editors themselves. As soon as they press first save and then edit they themselves have crossed the line from not being simple readers any more. A true readers doesn't even press the edit button, SqueakBox 21:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not an imperialist American. However the Z spelling should be used. It is the most common spelling in reference to NATO in English. It is the preferred spelling of the OED. I feel that there is a notion that all Americans want to force their ways down everyone's throats--Therefore we use the British spellings. That will show them! There is also a feeling of superiority amongst many Commonwealth English users. (Look, I am an American who knows what the Commonwealth is! Shock! Surprise!). There are even UK wikipedia users who call the US "the colonies" and think that it's cute. In fact, it's pathetic. It is just as bad if not worse than Americans calling the whole of the UK "England" or "Britain" or saying that Canada is ruled by "the queen of England" as opposed to the queen of Canada who happens to be the same as the UK monarch and anyway she doesn't rule, she is the head of state. Europe beats the US in healthcare, social policy, foreign policy and economic policy. I grant that. However, the US beats Europe in a few ways 1)Telecommunications are cheaper and there are more options, 2)Our public restrooms are cleaner and omnipresent, 3)We provide ice witb beverages and don't snicker if you want tap water, 4)American spellings are more logical and reasonable than the traditional spellings. Honestly, centre as an English word? Neighbourhood? Please please please use the Z spelling! Long live the Commonwealth, the EU, and American spellings! EdwinHJ | Talk 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your loos are lovely. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, why don't you first convince NATO itself to use the American spelling in its website (http://www.nato.int/) and then we'll comply also. Besides that, in truth I also generally prefer the American spellings, given how they are more "rational" --- but then again if we went by rationality we'd all be using Ido. Aris Katsaris 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The spellings like centre convey information derived from the root of the word. When you have a language derived from so many other languages this can be important and Americans miss out on some of the great diversity of English by loosing them. For example, the American spelling of paedophile implies that I love feet, when clearly I only like prepubescent feet. Etc.
 * ps. This is an encyclopaedia (www.britannica.com) as you can clearly see. 203.206.38.46 14:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies on the edit of the spelling. It wasn't until I read the discussion that I realized. I had thought perhaps it was UK spelling. I agree with any above comment that might at least suggest something to the reader about the article being written with spelling differences. Yes, it is normal for anyone in the UK, just as something the US might be different for someone the UK. I think, you could solve your problem with this particular article being edited. By including something about how, since the HQ of NATO is in Europe, the spelling is that way. Just echoing a thought. 70.237.195.39 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, go for it and dont forget to asdd a source. The UK/US spellings are an endless source of confusion but such is the world wide web, SqueakBox 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

 * This is stupid. Not agreeing to participate in American aggression is not sign of crisis - it's a sign that NATO is still working.

It was a crisis in that NATO has been an effective organization since its inception because its members have seen eye to eye on important defense matters. The refusal to enact protective measures in Turkey at the onset of the invasion of Iraq was shocking to all in that the alliance was fractured over a matter that would have once seemed routine and trivial.

A single member of NATO can veto all actions by NATO by simply voting against it. In this respect it is like the failed League of Nations. This might have been well and fine during the Cold War, when the alliance banded together on security matters, but with the unaminity in question over such a trivial matter, the very relevance of NATO comes into question. It was a crisis.

-


 * On February 10, 2003 NATO faced a serious crisis because of France and Belgium breaking the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

This is stupid. Not agreeing to participate in American aggression is not sign of crisis - it's a sign that NATO is still working. Taw 10:19 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

The real stupidity is that both France and Germany, especially their socio-political elite think that they are someone, when really their time in the sun is over. Get used to the fact that you are have-beens. --Numerousfalx 11:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very funny. Well that is the reason they didn´t go und never will go to iraq. The the sun down there is awful hot :-)

I think this should be moved to: North Atlantic Treaty Organization -fonzy


 * I disagree. See Naming conventions (acronyms). Generally acronyms that have four or more letters are unambiguous. --mav

Then EFTA should be moved.


 * Is it more widely known as EFTA or the European Free Trade Association? --mav

erm, i ahev no idea, if i asked ppl in my A-levekl class they probably will habe nevere heard of either term. -fonzy


 * It is known as EFTA only, and nobody refers to it by the full name. So the placement is okay. -- Cordyph 10:49 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * ? The article is at European Free Trade Association. --mav

I will move it then - fonzy -

ON Rory Bremners show yesterday they gave a ranking of countries' use of the NATO veto. This is something which should be explained in the article. (BTW, the top country was the USA) -- Tarquin 13:51 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

The article says Art. V was invoked on September 12 (in the intro) and September 13 (in the timeline). I'm pretty sure it was the 12th, but I'm not bold. --Charles A. L. 23:32, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sept 12th according to http://www.nato.int/terrorism/index.htm 145.254.54.96 22:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia??
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, no? A degree in politics and English literacy shouldn't be a requirement to be able to read the article! I think an inclusion should be made which outlines NATO's main purposes, what it means for countries bound by it, why there are bullets named for NATO and NATO training exercises. Basically, I think there should be a section explaining in basic terms exactly what NATO does and why it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.bombo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a map
A map with NATO countries shaded would be a good addition to this article, if someone could find or make one. --Lowellian 00:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

The map is fine, but Denmark is not marked as a Nato member.--217.230.175.214 11:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I try to re-upload an updated map. But it still gives the old version? I tried to upload twice the same file and on the wikipedia the fgure is different. http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/2/23/20040402124804%21Nato_map.png is the correct one. Can anybody help?? Donar Reiskoffer 12:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted to the version above and it seems ok now. Donar Reiskoffer 14:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a question on the map I uploaded: I marked Greenland as NATO member. Is this correct or not? Greenland can be seen as a part of Denmark, which is a NATO member. On the other hand Greenland is not a part of the European Union. Donar Reiskoffer 09:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greenland is an autonomous province og Denmark and voted to exclude itself from the European Union and remain part of NATO.--68.80.223.233 13:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NATO - Where from Here?
What happens next with NATO? The Members have stated the intent to stay clear of the EU, the French and Germans want to run it, and NATO is trying to "transform" itself into what? A Northern Hemisphere Treaty Organization or NHTO of Warhammer 40,000 fame? Will NATO form its own standing force of non-national units? Probably. Will the CIS countries eventually join? Probably. Will NATO achieve universal hegomy? and become the dominant military force in the world?--Tomtom 11:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What will happen to the EU's idea, actually France and Germany and Benelux, of a EGF or European military?
 * Well, the ESDP, CFSP, EDA, ERRF, EU battle groups and the EUFOR are clear pointers to the future.. Personally I see NATO expansion stopping before Ukraine and Belarus, after assimilating the former Yugoslav states. And when all European NATO members have joined EU aswell (2015 or so), I see the NATO being regarded as what it has been since 1991.. A solution in search of a problem. European NATO structure will probably be assimilated into some sort of EU military integration framework, and then the U.S. and Canada will have to form the United States of Canuckia and Jesusland, I guess.


 * This is just speculative, though, and should not be mentioned in the article unless some defense analyst can be used as a source. --Joffeloff 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A Technical Point
It is wrong to refer to Lituania, Latvia, and Estonia as "former Warsaw Pact" members. They were consitituent republics of the former Soviet Union when the WP was operative and lacked the sovereignty presumably necessary to join such an organisation, had they desired to. What they really are is former parts of a former nation that was in the former Warsaw Pact. I suppose the counterargument to this would be that some Western countries (U.S. included) never recognised the 1940 Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, but that would be a real quibble.

Let's don't automatically revert all British spellings to U.S. They are different, but that doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong, nor that they are so impenetrable to the average American to prevent him or her from knowing what is meant and therefore must be "corrected".

Rlquall 15:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That and British spellings are more Canadian too Go Colour!!

France
I see they withdrew in 1966, but they are a current member... it might be useful to note when they rejoined. Radagast 23:59, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

France never really withdrew, but they pulled out of the unified command structure and had all U.S. troops who had been posted in France leave. (They were still bound in theory by the idea that an attack on one was an attack on all. Many said that this meant that an attack on France was an attack on NATO, but not necessarily than an attack on another NATO member would have been regarded as an attack on France.)  This was DeGaulle at his best/worst. I think that they came back into the unified command structure under Chirac, fairly recently, but in some ways the damage was done. NATO HQ will never be in Paris again, and the French will not really probably be that major of an influence in NATO. This is a case of how DeGaulle's brand of French nationalism truly cut both ways and is still influential over three decades after his death, for better and for worse.

Rlquall 15:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

France left NATO because their nuclear weapons use was supposed to be ruled by NATO, and NATO has allways been under USA command. Having nuclear weapons under the command of another country is and was unnacceptable.


 * Quite right, NATO never was a real alliance between the US and Europe, but a US military appendix. Btw, that is why NATO is losing ground now that the cold war is over, that Europe gets organized, and also that the US has more an more an unilateral vision and thus is itself also less interested in NATO. No military pact is eternal, it just reflects a situation of the world at a given moment. Seems that France had foreseen this --Pgreenfinch 14:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone could add this info to the main page? I was wondering this exact thing...

NATO was not a US appendix, it was designed as a way to ensure that the US wouldn't return to its traditional isolationism, but would rather remain engaged in Europe and protect it from the Soviets. Thus the old saw about "keep the Americans in, the Russian out, and the Germans down." And the bit about nukes is a bit off, as the British have always mainted their "independent nuclear detterence" in various forms, and the US even "loaned" warheads to the German military, keeping a single US soldier posted with the warheads for mostly symbolic reasons. And yes, this is unsigned as I've not yet joined wikipedia.


 * I agree with the newbie. NATO was pushed by european states who wanted to ensure they got the Americans in to help balance the threat of a Soviet attack. I forget my username. :-s 203.206.38.46 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it ...
that someone who doesn't know or recognize differences in British and American usages, or even how to spell "grammar", apparently, and either hasn't learned to or won't sign in, knows how to "fix" an article that there was essentially nothing wrong with. Ordinarly I have a very calm disposition towards newcomers, since I was one not too very long ago, but am sorely tempted to make an exception in this case. So, if you're reading this, read your way through the newcomers' guide and then post a reply, if you care to, and then please sign it so that we can discuss things.

Rlquall 19:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact
There seems to be an error in the second paragraph. We say:

This provision was intended so that if a Warsaw Pact member launched an attack against the European allies of the United States, it would be treated as if it was an attack on all member states (including the United States itself),...

While later on, in the history section we note the the Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955, that is after the formation of NATO in 1949.

''May 14, 1955: Warsaw Pact treaty signed in Warsaw by the Soviet Union and its satellite states in order to counterbalance NATO. Both organisations were opposing sides in the Cold War. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated.''

The second paragraph proberbly needs fixing to say something like "soviet" but I think we still need to refer to the Warsaw Pact at some point in the intro. Does anybody have an elegent way of doing this? Andreww 10:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo's copyright
Would it be possible to add a copyright notice when it comes to the use of NATO pictures?

Thank you,

I have just checked and none of the photos we are using appear to be from NATO; they are from US public sources (defense dept etc), and therefore are released into the public domain already. The flag is from CIA, etc. By pressing on the little double square underneath each photo you can go to the page of the image where each individual copyright issue is dealt with. I also got the impression from looking at th official NATO website that we could not use NATO photos without getting specific permission from NATO. There are NATO photos I would love to use (eg a picture of Javier Solana, but have assumed I cannot due to NATO copyright. Can you clarify the situation? Thanks for the note, and if you have more questions please leave them here or write to me on my talk page, --SqueakBox 15:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

East Germany
Hi, No time NOW to do it myself but 1990 the reunified Germany joined the NATO.

I'll do it myself when i've time or you do for me =)

The reunified Germany was legally still the Federal Republic. There was no "new" Germany joining in 1990. However, it should be mentioned if it is not already. --ProhibitOnions 22:32, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

On a similar point, under Member States there is the following sentence: "Germany joined as West Germany in 1955 and German reunification on October 3, 1990 extended the membership to the areas of the former German Democratic Republic which became part of the Federal Republic of Germany."

My issue is that the country has been called the Federal Republic (Bundesrepublik) of Germany since 1948, and that West Germany was only an informal name used in English speaking countries. The text suggests that FRG is the name given to the reunified country

I suggest replacing with "The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) joined in 1955. German reunification on October 3, 1990 extended Germany's membership to the areas of the former German Democratic Republic."--Timdownie 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does the picture "NATO_vs_Warsaw_(1949-1990).png" display East Germany beeing a member of the Warsaw Treaty since 1956??? As I know, it signed along with all other founding countries on May 14 1955... I only have a czech version (of the treaty text) link (http://referaty.atlas.sk/vseobecne-humanitne/dejepis/4695/varsavska-zmluva---uplne-znenie), but I am sure there must be translations on web somewhere...

As far as I know, East Germany was Communist and it would make since for it to be part of the Warsaw Pact.Dunnsworth (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia
Slovenia is listed under "Former Eastern Bloc states that joined NATO after the Cold War", while the page on the Eastern Bloc clearly states that Yugoslavia (of which Slovenia was a part of during the Cold War) was not a part of the Eastern Bloc. I fixed this, a section just for Slovenia looks kind of stupid, but perhaps it will be expanded as more countries join NATO. Everyone OK with this change? --Tapir
 * Someone changed this back, so I will change it again, would the person please explain his/her reasoning here? Tapir 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest introducing a new section along the lines of "former Non-Aligned Movement states". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

Italy?
Why did Italy disappear? It was a founding member of nato. Is this a bug? I swear it was here before, but now there's no mention of Italy at all.

Fixed it..
First Wikipedia contribution.

User 152.163.100.13 delted it and replaced it with 'Kimbo' whatever that means. Subsequent revisions didn't fix...

New Macedonia¤-related poll
It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:


 * Template about to be deleted per TfD consensus.-Splash 02:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In particular, this article will be affected, among some others. If you happen to have an opinion for or against this proposition, please vote on it at Talk:Macedonian¤ denar/Vote. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 16:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Dry, taxonomic treatment
This article needs a major re-write, or maybe complete replacement. We don't need a taxonomy of NATO and its sub-structure. A list of NATO's members (with links), its secretaries-general (with links), various dates (with links) and gosh, even flags (with links!) tells us nothing about the organization (or organisation - who cares whether it's British or US spelling??) and the underlying geo-political tectonics that have shaped it over these past decades. A thoughtful, analyical piece would be far more helpful to the novice and sophisticated alike in appreciating NATO's history and function. There is plenty of material, both academic and popular, that would provide background for an entry that delved into this fasincating topic. Unfortunately, "fascinating" is the last thing one takes from the current Wiki article on NATO. Please torpedo it!!

Russia
Didn't Russia join NATO in 2001?

--Hobojoe9127 03:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Russia (and the USSR before it) has hinted from time to time that it would like to join. So far, its participation has been limited to membership in NATO's partnership for peace program, along with countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia. Russian full-on membership would be a step that might well destroy NATO from within, according to some. Member states such as Estonia, Latvia and Poland would very likely scuttle a serious bid for membership, and it is unlikely that any US administration (not to mention the Germans or Brits) would be enthusiastic about Russia actually joining.


 * Especially since NATO was originally made to protect against Soviet attack. Plus, I'm 100% sure Latvia (at least) would give a huge resounding NO!!! &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Protect". That still cracks me up. The first military bloc with first strike capability huge stockpile of nukes in a region that was essentially demilitarized... well, NATO put an end to that :|
 * -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I've removed text about Russias warning to aim missiles at Ukraine. I think in the article it was presented in too biased POV. Putin and also Putin was talkin about aiming missiles at American missile interceptors if they will be there, not at Ukraine in NATO. Oleg_Str --212.111.199.30 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NATO map
Northern Ireland is not coloured in blue but is left blank, maybe someone could rectify this. - Johnbull 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Organisation footnote
I find it pathetic that a footnote for the organisation spelling is needed. Please, let us rempve it. Andelarion 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nato wood
Where should an article go the covers the type of wood called "nato" that is commonly used on inexpensive acoustic guitars? Bnortham 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) How would everyone feel about adding: Nato is also the name of a wood used in guitar body and neck construction. Bnortham 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How 'bout Nato? Capitalization matters.  That and a disambiguation page to help folks sort out which one's which.  Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)