Talk:Partnership for Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Partnership for Peace is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] new member

Serbia is a new member since today,it should be on the front page of Wikipedia,and this article is to be changed.I would like to do that,but I am too lazy to look for links,but it is very important to change front page of Wikipedia and add this as one of the most important news.Thank you YXYX 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are misinfomred. First of all, Serbia is not the only one invited (Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina were too), second of all, as it is completely insignificant for the rest of the world it shouldn't be on the front page, and finally, it is still NOT a member, as it didn't sign the agreement. This is, of course, a formality, but a serious encyclopedia should treat formalities with outmost care. Regards.

How can it be insignificant??? Are you crazy,if you look on the front page,whenever there are elections in some socialist or communist country that is on the front page. Now there is a new country in Partnership for Peace(which is more important then some communist elections),that doesnt happen every day,so it should be on the front page,since it is a very important event.

YXYX 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialist and communist states do by definition not have elections, so your claim is nonsensical to the extreme. Go bother someone else. —Nightst a llion (?) 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in my last edit

Here are the main changes I have made:

I have expanded the intro to include Malta and why it left.
The dates each PfP member signed the Partnership document are in full.
References!
Integrated Montenegro, Serbia, and BiH's invites to PfP in the article.
Updated map; might try a crack at an SVG.

- Thanks, Hoshie 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

To be honest, I'm not entirely positive whether this article ought to be listed under the Military History project, as it seems a political/economic/diplomatic association, not a proper military alliance (or at least not a significant one, as it hasn't been directly involved in any conflicts, has it?) But, all of that aside, there's just not enough content here. You explain briefly what the PfP is, and who's a member, but not the history of how/why it developed, what it has done in the past, etc. Lists are no substitute for actual prose paragraph content. LordAmeth 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PfP isn't a military alliance, it's a subsiduary body associated to a military alliance (NATO). If you're going to categorise it, it's probably best labelled as a diplomatic association. It hasn't been _directly_ involved in any conflicts because doing so would contradict its supposed objectives (though it has come close at times, hence the reason Malta left and certain other neutral states have declined to join).

Secondly, there's an error in the references, numbers 2 and 3 point to the same link (the document for Malta's entry to the PfP)

Despite some fairly thorough searching, I can't seem to find a source document referring to Malta's withdrawal. --Wren-3^talk 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It seems that Maltese and NATO sources from the late 90's are pretty thin here. I fixed the ref some time ago. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)