Talk:NATO

Requested move on 11 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

---

NATO → North Atlantic Treaty Organization – I think we should use the long name, NATO is basically just an abbreviation. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:D19E:5DE1:CFCC:DCC1 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Negative--the reliable sources and scholars all use NATO, as do the major newspapers. Rjensen (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:NCA—blindlynx 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As blindlynx mentioned, WP:NCA says "acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and gives the example of NASA. I think it has to do with language and four letter acronyms, like the article North Atlantic Treaty is spelled out, but "NATO" is correct here.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCA—Anita5192 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted, the organization is universally referred to as NATO, not by its full English name. This is verging on WP:SNOWBALL. CAVincent (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a request from an IP with one edit, and even if made in good faith is obviously wasting editors' time. Requesting closure ASAP. CAVincent (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCA. The acronym NATO is used universally, no matter which the language use (except for French-speaking ones which use OTAN). Most secondary reliable sources and scholar refer use the acronym-only NATO. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose YBSOne (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per NCA.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Well majority doesn't knows the full form of NATO. Many of them search it and remember it as NATO because many news channels and news papers all use NATO while speaking or writing.NATO should not be changed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sheikh Khizer (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it's not broke, don't fix it. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Infobox Map(s)

Hi, I think the map currently in the infobox deserves an update, so I created a new one with more accurate and up-to-date borders that aligns with the conventions on orthographic map projections, plus different colors indicating the territories of member states that aren't actually covered by the treaty (e.g., French Guiana). I also created another map to focus on the European member states, which I think deserves a spot on the infobox as well.

From L-R: Current orthographic map; proposed orthographic map; proposed new European locator map

Qbox673 (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Fabulous, thank you, those are great. The current map has some pretty atrocious cartographic issues. You can see in the topic above from September, I went into the SVG to fix deviations in the Iraqi border and add Eritrea, which had been somehow forgotten. As I mentioned then, zooming into it shows just how simplified it is, but even that degree of simplification on coastlines is inconsistent in different spots. So yes, I'll put both of those maps you made into the infobox with a switcher toggle. Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 19:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So no one actually minds that the new map of NATO splits up the internationally recognized territories of Ukraine and Moldova?164.10.46.62 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

Republic of North Macedonia 193.92.36.5 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Anne drew 21:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2025

Change the field "leader_name2" from Rob Bauer to Giuseppe Cavo Dragone. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone has become Chair of the NATO Military Committee (CMC) on the 17th of January 2025. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_NATO_Military_Committee Missouri9687 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 15:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

claimed: "No military operations were conducted by NATO during the Cold War." "

False. US Navy and Turkish Navy have conducted NATO operations during the cold war. NATO members also conducted military operations together during the Vietnam War. 50.53.60.181 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? John (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

Russia and Belarus are currently suspended from Partnership for Peace, note such as "Currently suspended" suggested next to Russia and Belarus under "Membership." Breadispain (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Critique

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strengths Broad Historical Sweep: At ~11,000 words, the article traces NATO’s evolution from its 1949 founding to its 2024 expansion with Sweden. It excels in detailing Cold War origins, post-Soviet shifts, and recent responses to Russia’s Ukraine invasion, offering a clear arc of purpose and adaptation. Current Relevance: Updated to reflect 2024 events—e.g., Sweden’s March 7 accession, 23 members hitting the 2% GDP defense spending goal (June 2024), and Steadfast Defender 24—keeps it timely. The “2025 NATO Summit” isn’t here yet, but 2024’s Washington Summit is well-covered. Data Richness: Stats like 3.5 million personnel, $1.474 trillion in 2024 spending (55% of global military expenditure), and 25.07 million km² of territory ground the article in specifics. Maps (e.g., membership timeline) and tables (e.g., members list) enhance clarity. Operational Depth: The “Military Operations” section shines, cataloging interventions from Bosnia (1992) to Libya (2011) with specifics—e.g., 9,500 sorties in Libya, 72 civilian deaths per HRW. It ties missions to strategic shifts, like Article 5’s post-9/11 invocation. Neutral Stance: Despite NATO’s geopolitical heft, the tone stays balanced—acknowledging Russia’s expansion objections alongside NATO’s deterrence logic. Citations from diverse sources (NATO itself, BBC, Reuters) bolster objectivity. Weaknesses Length vs. Accessibility: At 11,000+ words, it’s dense. Sections like “History” (20th vs. 21st century split) and “Military Operations” (nine subheadings) overwhelm casual readers. Key points—like Article 5’s rarity—get buried. 2025 Gap: As of February 21, 2025, it lacks post-June 2024 updates. X posts hint at rising U.S.-NATO tensions under Trump’s second term (e.g., his February 10, 2024, “delinquent” jab), but the article stops at 2024 spending stats. This risks staleness. Dry Prose: The factual style—“NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone on 24 March”—lacks narrative flair. It misses NATO’s visceral stakes (e.g., Cold War brinkmanship) or human angles (e.g., Afghan withdrawal chaos). Perspective Imbalance: Russia’s view (e.g., Gorbachev assurances) gets space, but China’s opposition is a footnote. Non-Western critiques—like NATO’s role in Libya’s instability—are thin. X could surface more global takes. Visual Sparsity: Only six images (e.g., Berlin Wall chunk, Libya wreckage) for such scope feels skimpy. No maps of Eastern flank deployments or photos from 2024’s Steadfast Defender dilute engagement. Structural Issues Uneven Depth: “History” dwarfs “Structure” (1,500 vs. 800 words), though NATO’s command complexity (ACO vs. ACT) warrants more. “Partnerships” crams PfP, EU ties, and global partners into 700 words, lacking flow. Repetition: Article 4 invocations repeat across “History” (Syria, 2012) and “Turkish Border” without synthesis. Spending targets bounce between “NATO Defence Expenditure” and “History” (2014 Wales pledge). Subheading Overload: “Military Operations” splits into nine chunks (e.g., “Bosnia” vs. “Kosovo”), fragmenting the narrative. A timeline or merged “Post-Cold War Ops” section could streamline it. Citation Clutter: Some paragraphs (e.g., Libya intervention) pile 10+ footnotes, bogging down readability. Others (e.g., Afghan withdrawal’s “greatest debacle” claim) lack sourcing precision—whose politicians said this? Specific Content Gaps 2025 Context: No mention of Trump’s February 2025 NATO rhetoric (e.g., X posts on “freeloaders”) or potential policy shifts post-inauguration. A web/X search could catch this. Public Perception: “Membership” lists joiners but skips public sentiment—e.g., Finnish/Swedish opinion pre-2023/2024 accessions. X data (e.g., Helsinki protests, 2022) could fill this. Cyber/Tech Role: NATO’s cyber defense (e.g., CCDCOE in Tallinn) or hybrid warfare focus gets a passing nod in “Structure” but no meat. Russia’s 2022 cyberattacks on Ukraine tie in—why not expand? Climate Angle: Defense spending and ops dominate, but NATO’s climate security pivot (e.g., 2021 Action Plan) is absent. X buzz on green military tech could add a modern lens. Opportunities for Improvement Condense: Merge repetitive Article 4 mentions into a “Consultation History” table. Trim “Early Operations” (Anchor Guard, Ace Guard) to a paragraph—minor compared to Bosnia. Update Live: Add a “2025 Developments” stub with Trump’s latest NATO stance from X/news (e.g., February 10 speech fallout). I could fetch this if asked. Engage: Spice up prose—e.g., “The Berlin Wall’s 1989 fall forced NATO to rethink its soul” vs. “marked a turning point.” X quotes from leaders (e.g., Stoltenberg) could punch it up. Balance: Flesh out China’s critique (e.g., SCO counterweight) and add Russian public views via Levada polls. X posts from Beijing or Moscow could contrast NATO’s take. Visuals: Insert a 2024 summit photo, Eastern flank map, or cyber ops graphic. Wikipedia’s image bank supports this—why not use it? Threats to Quality Edit Friction: “Extended-confirmed-protected” hints at past tussles—likely over Russia’s role or U.S. dominance. Trump’s 2025 provocations could reignite this, skewing neutrality. Event Drift: NATO’s fast-evolving stance (e.g., Ukraine aid, Trump pressure) outpaces edits. X moves quicker—e.g., Stoltenberg’s February 2025 rebuttals aren’t here yet. Scope Creep: Adding 2025 risks bloating an already long piece. Without pruning, it could lose focus—deterrence vs. everything NATO touches. 78.3.92.198 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC) This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable sources. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

NATO 2% of GDP spending graphs

The financial contribution of each member of NATO has been a topic of interest for many, including the historical failure of many NATO members to meet the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP spending. Suggest adding some graphs to show the spending and % of GDP for members including historical data to help readers understand how many countries for years failed to meet the 2% of GDP guideline. Data can be found here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf 178.153.41.28 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It is a good idea, but the thing is, graphs need to be made by somebody who makes graphs. I personally don't. Lova Falk (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

there are some charts on the Member states of NATO page, which I added a few years ago, so a bit out of date now, but may help you. Maybe that page is a good one to link in the See Also section of this article. I'm not in a position to edit right now, otherwise would add it. Hope this helps! 2A02:C7C:D6CB:6300:244C:6749:3915:DCB7 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2025

Please change "Another 19 countries are involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes with NATO." to "Another 37 countries are involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes with NATO." with the following official NATO reference https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm. NATO has 18 Partnership for Peace partners, 7 Mediterranean Dialogue partners, 4 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative Partners and 9 Partners Across the Globe partners. NATOPublicDiplomacy (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

18 + 7 + 4 + 9 = 38 ;) Lova Falk (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Lova Falk (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

Change "Another 38 countries are involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes with NATO" to "In total, 35 non-member countries and 3 international organisations are involved in institutionalized dialogue programmes with NATO." NATOBob (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I count 38 + 3 at the linked source: [1]. TDL (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The source itself says "35 non-member countries and a range of international organizations". I'm assuming they aren't counting Belarus, Russia, and Afghanistan, as they note those are suspended. I'm comfortable counting the same way that they do. meamemg (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

OK fair enough, I will add the qualification "actively" to reflect this. TDL (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)