Talk:North Atlantic Treaty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atlantic Pact misnomer[edit]

The terms Atlantic Pact and North Atlantic Pact were in common use before NATO was formed. The Western European Union predated NATO and numerous declassified documents in the National Archives, London, use these terms freely, in the context of WEU military planning. One such example is DEFE 11/279 Clandestine Organisations, which documents WEU efforts to set up clandestine resistance and sabotage organizations in Eastern and Western European countries behind Soviet front lines in the event of a Russian attack and advance to the Rhine. Some rewriting of the main article needs to take account of this other use of the term Atlantic Pact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.Hutchinson (talk • contribs) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of User talk:92.64.31.85 drive-by removal[edit]

Hi there. You identified my User talk:69.171.101.124 submission to the North Atlantic Treaty wiki as having been plagiarized. That is a very serious charge, and I wish you would withdraw it. Your User talk:92.64.31.85 exact words were "However, I reverted your edits there because I noticed you copied a piece from http://usild.org/Afghanistan-War.html word for word."

In fact I copied--some of my contribution--verbatim from the NATO wiki article.

As you may realise, wiki allows us free duplication; it even encourages the practice. It is to the authors of the NATO article that you must address yourself. I wish you luck, because you would likely need to identify yourself beyond an IP address. I am unsure you will do so as your IP address looks professional, and you might reveal yourself as a paid and trained sock puppet--which is never good for promotion within the organisation.

My other contributions are valid and you censor them at your risk.

I plan to undo your unfortunate drive-by diminution at North Atlantic Treaty. You may wish to remove the usild.org material, but please only do so to the material that was actually taken from usild.org *after* you have successfully removed the NATO article material. Alternately, you may wish to paraphrase the usild.org source material on North Atlantic Treaty once you have identified it and only it.

I plan also to move this discussion to the North Atlantic Treaty talk page Talk:North Atlantic Treaty. Please feel free to apologise to me there.

69.171.101.124 (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm terribly sorry to get off on the wrong foot here. I'll take a further look at what might have happened. The stuff on http://usild.org/Afghanistan-War.html may have been taken from the NATO article without attribution, or it might be the other way around, but looking at that website again, it does display the linking to Wikipedia typically found in a fork. I didn't see any attribution of the NATO article in your contribution to North Atlantic Treaty, so I didn't make a connection there.
If it was taken from the NATO article, we still need to patch that up: we're free to copy things internally, but they do require attribution, so should link to the revision it was copied from. Duplication is allowed under our license, but not unconditionally. Lastly, lets drop the silly accusations of paid editing and sock-puppetry and the likes. We're here to work side by side as colleagues. We all make honest mistakes from time to time. Mine was identification of the source of a copyright violation. The sort of hostility you're showing here is completely uncalled for. 92.64.31.85 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@69.171.101.124: Looking at the article history, the verbatim part seems to be built organically on Wikipedia, and the earliest date the wayback machine gives me for the page on usild.org is February of this year, which leads me to believe that it indeed copied from our NATO article without attibution. Are there any other articles you've taken content from and pasted in this one or other ones? I yes, could you make an empty edit to note in the edit summary the the revision and history of those pages there to fix the remaining copyright problems? If you need a hand with that, let me know which articles it were, and I can do it for you. 92.64.31.85 (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your consideration. I understand you better now. I can't remember lifting from wiki anywhere else recently. You might want to update Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content to better reflect your position on "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." because it fails to specify that wiki-to-wiki material needs to be attributed.
The hostility with which you charge me was occasioned as the result of your charge of plagiarism. I am glad we have had this discussion so that we will henceforth deal with one another with less mutual aggression.

69.171.101.124 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content is only for re-using things outside of Wikipedia, more information for copying and re-using material inside wikipedia can be found on Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's possible that that's not so clear, I'll see if I can edit that page at all, and if so, make improvements to fix it. The lack of attribution here is an honest mistake, and it was unintentional, and it is also plagiarism (just not from the site I originally thought it was, but from another Wikipedia article). I find it important that Wikipedians can, in an atmosphere of collegiality, address such issues.
Everybody is expected to make mistakes, and some mistakes are serious, but blame should never be on the forefront of addressing mistakes. Fixing the problem should be. And in this case, we can fix it by adding the proper attribution. A quick fix done by communicating and finding out what was done and how we can do better. Happy editing, and please don't be afraid to make more mistakes in the future: it's part of how we learn and improve, and it's a wiki, fixing mistakes is what we do. 92.64.31.85 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and relevance[edit]

In the content section, there is an excess of detail relating to the history of usage of the articles of the treaty. The information appears, to me, to be unrelated to the actual content of the treaty and could also be construed as detailing a conflict unrelated to the article for political purposes. I believe the article needs to be edited significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.151.3 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

articles 2 and 3?[edit]

where are articles 2 and 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NAT has 14 articles. The link to Full Text is at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. 75.131.210.126 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on North Atlantic Treaty. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield oregon[edit]

We nbut we are dying and suffering at the hands off your vets.n eed your help here. No affence 😘 please help us . now before more dye. Lisa bunch 2600:387:F:4B32:0:0:0:8 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

I removed the Cuban Missile Crisis from the table because it wasn't invoked then, but there does seem to be interesting literature about why it wasn't invoked, which may be useful to add: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=eilr, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152053 //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think was going on with that other source I found from the National Security Council (that's a pretty good competing source, right?)? I saw that the NATO ambassador Finletter was ordered to convene, so I treated that as an Article 4 invocation. Your second source is interesting, so let me hold off until I can get access to the full version, but I'd like to see it to doublecheck through it. I also wonder if there were past invocations, but we just don't know about them because they haven't been declassified yet, or how many of these sources have kept up with recent declassifications. Fephisto (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NATO meets all the time and has ambassadors doing things all the time. It's not under Article 4 unless the article specifically is invoked. Past classified invocations is an intriguing idea, but I don't think its likely, to be honest. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got a chance to look at the second link you linked here (that Wikipedia library access feature is amazing), thanks for that, it really helped clear things up. I also tried to incorporate the prior link into the article, since it makes clear the deterrent nature of Article 4. Fephisto (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Question[edit]

When in reference to a specific article of the treaty, is it considered a proper noun? E.g., should one say "but by Article 5, allied members must" or should one say "but by article 5, allied members must"? Currently, the capitalization is inconsistent throughout the article. Fephisto (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the referenced news articles appear to capitalize "Article" when in reference to a specific article of the treaty, so I've gone through and copied that same style here. Fephisto (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal: Article 5[edit]

I think Article 5 section is already disproportionately long enough and could actually be greatly expanded, albeit in its own article. Actually, people may know more about "Article 5" than they do about the "North Atlantic Treaty". Proposed title would be Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Polmas (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that the section is excessively long. As noted, Article 5 has only been invoked once. Everything else in this section is just about cases when someone brought up the possibility of invoking it. The Syrian Civil War bit is given undue weight, and it looks like all but one cite in the section is to a single website which was subsequently shut down by the Turkish government. Without better sourcing as to whether there was real talk of invoking Article 5 or just Turkish bluster, we might be better without the section at all. The Russian propaganda paragraph is entirely reliant on The Telegraph. I don't care to subscribe to read the references, but I'd be a bit surprised if anyone in a position of responsibility has seriously raised the idea of invoking Article 5 over propaganda. The Zaporizhzhia Power Plant attacks has a single reference, which appears to obviously not be a reliable source. I did a quick google search and the only items I found in support of this section are clearly Ukrainian outlets plus a tweet from a U.S. Congressmen who will be out of a job in January. As to the Albanian cyberattack bit, while sourcing isn't awful, the likelihood of invoking Article 5 in response to a cyberattack on Albania seems so remote that the section's existence may be undue weight. Thinking about it, deleting all of the sections I've mentioned and replacing them with a brief summary that the idea of invoking Article 5 has been raised a few times in recent years (but without any serious chance of that happening) would likely be best. It certainly doesn't need significant expanding at this point in time.
So, no, splitting the article doesn't seem like a good idea. CAVincent (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Civil War bit just needs elbow grease. There's a lot split around in Operation Active Fence and Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian civil war articles that should ideally be incorporated but...it's just a lot of work. I also don't know if there were any calls for Article 5 because of the Suruç bombing. I'm not an expert in this stuff.
Also, I suppose I should apologize for making it disproportionately long. I was just trying to split it up into multiple sections because as it was it read like a giant paragraph word salad. Fephisto (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CAVincent's analysis that most of the sections are just fluff that shouldn't exist on this article. Cutting it down to three paragraphs: the intro, 9/11, and potential invocations, seems prudent. Creating a separate Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is a decent idea, if we want to add deeper detail over there. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made a separate article, if someone wants to doublecheck me. Edit: did I do that too fast? Fephisto (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, way too fast. Also, if this does turn out to split it out, please see WP:SPLIT on how to do it properly. Onel5969 TT me 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Fephisto (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a split as well, but I agree with CAVincent's assessment above that the current section in this article needs a ton of paring down. I also like their idea of several sentences summarizing those ideas of invoking it.Onel5969 TT me 17:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot pairing it down into a table instead like with Article 4. How does that look? Fephisto (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Onel5969 TT me 20:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I've done this, I notice a lot of these already have their own main article. For example, the Suleyman tomb attack has its own lengthy article that has a lot of the paragraphs that were here in this article. So maybe instead of a split, these redirects are sufficient? Fephisto (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better.Onel5969 TT me 00:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it should not be split. I removed one questionable example from the table, but others seem to be OK, especially Zaporizhzhia Power Plant attacks (it was widely debated in many RS; this can be better sourced if needed). My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Fephisto (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And 8 months later, looks like the consensus is to not split. To be frank, not enough content is in the article to justify a split anyways. Therefore, the recommendation to split this article should be taken down. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Explosion in Poland[edit]

There's been a spike of activity on this page because of the recent news, thus why I put the notice on the Article 4 section. So far, there has been no official call for Article 4 by Poland due to the explosion in Poland. To quote NATO Secretary General as of yesterday: 

There's been no call for an Article 4 meeting. That's based on the findings, based on the analysis and based on the results so far of the ongoing investigation.

[1]

This might or might not change, though.

Regarding Article 5, although U.S. Congressman has made comments on it[2], I haven't been able to find any sources that any member of the Polish government itself has been considering, which I would think would be the minimum criteria to include it in the Article 5 table. Those are my 2 cents, if anyone else wants to chime in, or if something has changed. Fephisto (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ NATO. "by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg after the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on Poland".
  2. ^ "Menendez warns of 'consequences' if Russia behind deadly strike on Poland - POLITICO". www.politico.com. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Atlantic_Treaty&oldid=1194461334"