Talk:NATO
|
|
| Contents |
Spelling
NATO historically uses British spelling as a standard. It is an "organisation". 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)
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.
An event in this article is a April 4 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).
- 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 didnīt 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 Wikipedia: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)
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.
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?
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)
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...
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)
Expansion map colours
Hi, I'm red-green colourblind and I find the map of the NATO expansion in europe particularly tricky to see.
The biggest problem for me (and also the ~8% of the population with this problem) is distinguishing between the colours for 1999 and 2004, which look almost identical to me.
Also, it can prove hard to discern/remember which shade of pale blue refers to which year, notably 1952/1955. I can imagine this may help for the sake of clarity of all users.
I'm not confident enough in Wiki stuff to upload a better version, so perhaps some one out there could help.
I was also wondering whether there exists a Wiki initiative for problems such as this to help identify/report accessibility problems. Maybe the page could be marked with a 'accessibility problem' tag or somesuch??
Anyway, I digress. Thanks for your time.
Gt 04:13, 25 Feb 2005 (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,
Bram De Smet, NIDS - NATO
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)