Talk:Croatia–NATO relations

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Croatia–NATO relations. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225060157/http://www.mondo.rs/s161455/Press_izbor/Press-_Vec_smo_u_NATO_uveo_nas_Tito.html to http://www.mondo.rs/s161455/Press_izbor/Press-_Vec_smo_u_NATO_uveo_nas_Tito.html

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) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2023

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: Out of all the portions of the proposal, the Canada portion has received overwhelming support. Except Canada, all other portions were overwhelmingly voted against. Another suggestion to move to "X and NATO" format for all articles is also discussed but no consensus to move is noticeable. If deemed necessary, another RM discussion can be created for a consolidated discussion. For now, Canada-NATO relations is MOVED, rest are Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 13:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Croatia–NATO relations → Croatia in NATO
• Albania–NATO relations → Albania in NATO
• Canada–NATO relations → Canada in NATO
• Finland–NATO relations → Finland in NATO
• North Macedonia–NATO relations → North Macedonia in NATO
• Montenegro–NATO relations → Montenegro in NATO

– Conforms with Turkey in NATO, as well as Romania in NATO. I saw some consensus for this in a requested move on another page. Thoughts? Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. – Treetoes023 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment not taking a formal side on this discussion yet. Just wanted to note that the list here is fairly varied. As an example, Finland has a significant amount of past relations with NATO before actually becoming a member (i.e. the case could be made the primary topic of the article should be the 60+ years of relations prior to formal membership), whereas Canada, as a founding member, had almost zero relations before NATO was formed and the article should primarily cover how Canada interacts as a member of NATO. Maybe both articles are maintained: Finland–NATO relations covers the era prior to membership up to ratification and Finland in NATO covers post-membership? Then, for any country that doesn't have significant coverage of past relations prior to becoming a member (i.e. Canada) would just have an "...in NATO" article, like Canada in NATO. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  This comment expresses my position. ~TPW 15:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support, however each article needs to have sections that make it clear whether the information being talked about is from before their accession into NATO. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada, neutral for Albania & oppose for Croatia, Finland, Montenegro & N. Macedonia. Canada's article is about its history in NATO. Albania's article isn’t particularly detailed. The articles for Croatia, Finland, Montenegro & N. Macedonia contain many details about what happened before those countries were in NATO. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I do agree that uniformity in the page titles would be a good thing, though personally im leaning more towards the "x country-NATO relations" format, given thats the norm used for most articles on diplomatic relations✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  00:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment as another suggestion, what about renaming all in the style of Canada and NATO, derived from other existing international organization articles such as Canada and the United Nations and Canada and the International Monetary Fund. I think that fixes some of the problems with the nom as 'in NATO' makes the whole article sound like it should cover only content while as a member state and not before.Yeoutie (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Oppose suggestions changing just Canada. These articles should be uniform as they all cover the same thing: how their country relates to NATO. Yeoutie (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral for Canada, Oppose for all others – For all articles on non-founding members, a significant portion is dedicated to the time before the country joined the alliance; "Country–NATO relations" includes that, "Country in NATO" does not. DecafPotato (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes on Canada, but everyone else has an external history with this entity. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for those countries which were not founder nations. For non-founder nations, if "X in NATO" is to exist, it should be solely as a redirect to "X–NATO relations". — The Anome (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, except for Canada. Indeed uniformity is great, but when it is at the expense of suitability of the title (which also handles pre-accession relations, as ao DecafPotato clearly indicated), it goes to far.. L.tak (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Only for Canada. As per above the other countries aren't founding members so relations should be better. - azpineapple | ^T/_C 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada. I agree that the others should also be moved from their current titles. So, this move request can perhaps be salvaged if the others are moved to "[Country] and NATO" – e.g. Finland and NATO. Either that, or Gonzo fan2007's suggested solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. // 💪Benzo💪 (Talk!) 12:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada as it was a founding member. Vamsi20 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Yeoutie's proposal for consistency with other such articles. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Article titles have consistency after this move. The person who loves reading (alt) (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada formally. Support in principle on the rest but if and when the other articles can have more information on each individual country's activities with NATO. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for Canada only per InedibleHulk and Azpineapple. For countries where there is extensive history before joining, relations is better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: Courteous pinging to all previous contributors of the last RM: Walt Yoder, InedibleHulk, Blaylockjam10, Pann20125536, 4iamking, Spagheditor, Super Dromaeosaurus, BenzoAid, Knightoftheswords281, GigaDerp, ChocolateAvian, Starkex, EnormityOP, Tim O'Doherty, Pigmattmc, Orbitalbuzzsaw. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada, but for the others, I support User:Gonzo_fan2007's proposal to have "–NATO relations" pages detailing pre-membership history, and "in NATO" pages detailing post-membership history.

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support per nom. I've always thought the term "relations" is a bit odd when the country in question is a member. It's fine for non-member states though. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 09:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. – MaterialWorks 11:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada, oppose for Finland, Montenegro & North Macedonia, and neutral on Albania and Croatia. I largely agree with the comments by Gonzo fan2007 and Blaylockjam10. Finland/Montenegro/North Macedonia in NATO should be separate articles from their relations prior to joining. Finland and North Macedonia have relatively long histories to cover, and the Montenegro article is fairly extensive despite a short history. Albania and Croatia have shorter histories outside of NATO (1991-2009), and their articles are not that extensive. But if they are expanded, they should also be separate. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I also think it should be noted that, with the exceptions of Canada and (to a lesser extent) Albania, these articles are currently almost exclusively about pre-NATO relations. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Canada, as it was a founding member. I do think that it warrants having an article on Finland-NATO relations on the 70+ year history of those relations prior to Finland's joining of NATO. The same goes for Albania (though a few less years were spent apart). I'm neutral on the former Yugoslav states; there was substantially less time where they were interacting NATO prior to joining, and I'm not sure if WP:NOPAGE would prefer the subjects be covered separately or together. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: As suggested by User:Yeoutie and User:IJBall, I think these should be moved to "[Country] and NATO". This avoids both the problem of "in" for countries that are not members and the problem of "relations" for countries that are members. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Yeoutie's proposal which provides the most succinct and consistent way to title these articles. Oppose all other proposals. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposed these titles are dumb, we don't have "Texas-U.S. relations" Red Slash 07:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  That said, I prefer Croatia and NATO for reasons stated below; it makes it clear that the entirety of the country's relationship with NATO (both pre and post-joining) is included. Red Slash 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Yeoutie's proposal for consistency, there is nothing special about NATO in this regard Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support:It does appear logical fallacious to referred to something as a relation while being a part of that very same thing. Istanbul-Turkey relations would for instance be a very weird name for an article describing how Istanbul became Turkish. Instead, it is called “Fall of Constantinople”. Especially in international politics, “relation” is used to describe interactions between independent entries where Finand is now a part of the entry of NATO. I understand that some countries have longer history in NATO than others or are even founding members. Making a distention does however appear somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent. A possible distinction could be weather or not a state has been a member for the majority of NATO’s existence but this I don’t find particularly appealing.--Marginataen (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: How about relations that didn't involve them being in NATO yet (ex.Finland). Starship 24 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also support and; e.g., Croatia and NATO, for the reason you suggest Red Slash 15:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (second) Oppose Yeoutie's proposal. In my opinion, it is concision at the expense of (encyclopedic) naturalness. I also don't think it's necessary to create a uniform title format for members and non-members. The current title is good for non-members and members with a prior history outside of NATO. And articles about activities in NATO should use that word. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Support for County and NATO - it takes into account past, current and future County - NATO relations, additionally, title harmonization and standardization is welcome.

Oppose to all other propositions. Pann20125536 (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• No strong feelings on moves as proposed. Oppose and NATO alternative: no compelling reason to ignore the WP:AND article title guideline. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, there is a compelling reason. Relations between each of these countries and NATO are widely covered in reliable sources, and neither X–NATO relations nor X in NATO is appropriate for countries that are both current members of NATO but weren't founding members. For instance, Finland has had a significant history before joining NATO, so Finland–NATO relations is no longer an accurate title because Finland is now part of NATO, and Finland in NATO is not accurate as Finland joined NATO only this month. The guideline says avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased...Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources, neither of which is clearly the case here. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  While On Country and NATO would be a decent title for an author to express their opinions in other media, it's not really suitable for an encyclopedia. And the shortened version runs into another problem with and-titles. That the too concise Country and NATO implies the topic of the article without really stating it. If there's a need to merge these topics into the current articles, (four of which are exclusively about pre-NATO relations), then Country's Relationship to NATO would be a more informative alternative. Although the current Country–NATO relations title seems to be a slightly more concise and standardised version of this. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Relister comment: At this juncture, it's highly likely that a consensus will emerge to move Canada–NATO relations as proposed, but more discussion is still needed to establish a consensus either for or against the other moves in this proposal. Commenters are also encouraged to give their opinions on the "...and NATO" title format proposed during the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Yeoutie's suggestion to renam[e] all in the style of Canada and NATO. This would follow WP:CONSISTENT, and it would be suitable for articles about countries that are currently NATO members but have had a long history with NATO prior to joining. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support moving to "in NATO" or "and NATO" variants. I'm not too particular about the details, but the current titles are a little misleading for countries that are in NATO. Imagine an article titled "Texas - US relations" (joke). Toadspike (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Yeoutie's suggestion, as "X and NATO" would include both history before joining and once part of NATO. Plus precedent in articles such as Canada and the United Nations for WP:CONSISTENT. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - "(country X) and NATO" per comment by Yeoutie above and Chaotic Enby. --Ooligan (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment With Romania in NATO and Turkey in NATO being current article titles, if there is consensus for the "and NATO" form, what is the plan with those two articles? (I would assume just a separate RM to move them to the "and NATO" title, but just bringing this up for completion's sake.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, that can work. Perhaps you can also help set up a multiple-page-move RM for those articles. Regardless of the results, I recommend that the new RM be started after this RM closes, just to avoid overlapping, you know? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There seems to be support for a move of some kind, but I'd like confirmation of "and" or "in"? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:45, 9 May 2023 (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.