Wikipedia:Peer review/NATO/archive1

NATO
This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement "NATO Summit 2006 will take place in Latvia" and "Connections to terrorism" appear out of place in the Purpose section. The later should probably be in a criticisms section for neutrality reasons. As I read it, Operation Gladio was intended for clandestine operations if NATO members became occupied. There's a big difference between that and what is stated as "right wing terrorist organisations", so I think the reason for that wording needs to be clarified. Otherwise it reads like leftist propaganda. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gladio was originally set up to counter a soviet invasion but as parliamentary investigations show, the network was extensively used (and since no invasion took place - solely used) to discredit and supress socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Gladio was (and perhaps is still) and integral part of NATO. In deed, it has been discovered (and published, see references) that NATO candidates were required to set up gladio networks before their membership would be accepted. These networks were then put under the control of the NATO leadership. Its an important aspect of NATO's purpose, so I don't think it should be under a critism section - it isn't a critism, its simply a fact. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then most of that section is more appropriate for the history sections. I only see one sentence in there related to purpose, and that is not even confirmed or denied by NATO. Nowhere in there does it actually state the purpose of suppressing socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Instead it states the purpose was to increase the power of the U.S.A.
 * I can somewhat understand the purpose of a Gladio in the light of an anti-communist organization, given the rampant paranoia of the cold war period. But then that section should be specifically about the purpose; not a history. &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the whole of NATO's purpose is historical - it is to defend western Europe against the Soviet Union - and NATO has never really redefined itself since the collapse of that enemy. Also, there is no evidence that Gladio was every shut down but if we put it in the history section it implies that we know it was.
 * The history section can just cover the history of the revelations regarding Gladio, as well as the current EU activities in that regard. It does not need to infer that it was ever shut down. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * I do think you've made some good points about the section not being streamlined for inclusion under purpose. Perhaps the solution is to keep a brief mention (~1 line) of Gladio in the purpose section, and move the rest to history. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works for me: having the "Purpose" section describe the existence of the Gladio and it's purpose--both as a clandestine organization to operate behind enemy lines and as an anti-communist group that employed terrorist and subversive tactics, up to and including coup attempts. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. What do you think? How about the rest of the article? Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that looks good. The only sentence that might need to be tweaked reads, "The official aim was to prevent Communist movements..." Since the program still hasn't been officially confirmed, it would read more neutral if used a word such as "alleged" or "supposed" were included.
 * Apart from that, the only things that come to mind are: NATO agreements on standardized armaments and shared equipment, and measures taken for multi-national cooperation on the battlefield (such as common communications, languages, radio frequencies, IFF, etc.) Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)