Talk:Neutral country

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Military history Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Archives

Archive 1

Why isn't Bhutan on here?[edit]

Why isn't Bhutan on here?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem Bhutan is a neutral. Perhaps that fact can be added-in in the coming upgrade.

Scott P. (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States?[edit]

How can the US be described as neutral in 1914-17 and 1939-41? It did everything possible to help the British Empire from the very beginning of both world wars, without actually declaring war on Germany. (MarekValenti (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

During those years, both sides recognized the US as neutral. While you are certainly correct in this, I'd say if even the Germans officially recognized our neutrality then, so should WP. Scott P. (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map should be changed[edit]

Ireland's neutrality is long disputed. (MarekValenti (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hopefully in the upcoming upgrade. Scott P. (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neutral country. 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/20081030085827/http://www.viitorul.org/public/866/en/IonM%20-%20studiu_neutralitate__eng_.doc to http://www.viitorul.org/public/866/en/IonM%20-%20studiu_neutralitate__eng_.doc

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) 16:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for the "link-rot-fix". Scott P. (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EU countries really neutral?[edit]

According to Military operations of the European Union, the EU has engaged in foreign military interventions at least 30 times since 2002. Isn't that the textbook definition of non-neutrality? Why are we seeming to give the EU and its members a "pass" on this here, allowing them to still claim to be fully neutral while their forces are making foreign military interventions? I would recommend that all EU countries be moved to the "disputed or 'uncertain' neutrality" category, both on our map, and in our categorzation of them. How can they be sending out their troops to foreign military interventions while claiming to still be "neutral"? Scott P. (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would also recommend unifying/ merging the confusing "Disputed neutral countries" category and the "Claim to be neutral" category into a single, "Uncertain neutrality" category, thus clearly matching the map categories to the text categories. I'd also suggest using specific well cited explanations for each country as to why each claim to be neutral is considered to be "uncertain."

Scott P. (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the page about whether the EU compromises a member state's neutrality is of course needed - with full citation - but where is anything to back up the other countries? Being neutral does not preclude being part of a multilateral organization. It can be that state's choice, it is the reason Switzerland did not join the UN until really late, but it isn't a requirement and if we are taking that then every neutral country listed is questioned.

We can't make the judgement of which country is more compromised than another without reflecting a reliable source doing so. The EU section for example leads on the Prime Minister of Finland questioning Finland's neutrality. Do you have anything for Ghana, Japan, Mexico, Mongolia, Moldova, Rwanda and Serbia?

I'd suggest, rather than splitting the list even on the basis of a citation, the discussion about a said country is simply made in the notes section, or a note leading to points of debate if it is a common topic. But no country should be flagged as uncertain without some relevant citation.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neutral country. 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) 11:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neutral country. 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/20090305233501/http://ijc.md/Publicatii/mlu/legislatie/Constitution_of_RM.pdf to http://ijc.md/Publicatii/mlu/legislatie/Constitution_of_RM.pdf

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

I think the color of the map is too bright[edit]

I think that the light yellow and cyan colors on this world map are too bright, which makes the map less readable. I can recreate a colored world map. Everyone's opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.34.23.1 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SFR Yugoslavia[edit]

Why is SFR Yugoslavia totally ignored in the article? SFR Yugoslavia after 1949 after the Stalin-Tito split initiated a foreign and military policy of neutrality, so much that it became the leading force of the Non-Alligned Movement, a movement which laid its foundations in neutrality and which was of high importance during most of the Cold War era. Besides cases such as Sweden or Switzerland, the Non-Alligned countries in which Yugoslavia had a leading role was basically the definition of neutrality. Some even considering it a Third Way, or Third Power, with other two being the Unites States and Soviet Union with its allies. Its a fact that Non-Alliegned movement is much neglected in present time, but totally ommiting Yugoslavia from this article becomes a major flaw. FkpCascais (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland[edit]

If i am not mistaken iceland is missing as Like the rest of the nordics iceland was nautral til it was invaded by the uk Andri12 (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough detail for map/irrelevancy[edit]

I feel like the map displayed on the article needs more explanation or should be deleted. The article states, "A neutral country is a state that is neutral towards belligerents in a specific war or holds itself as permanently neutral". The map merely states which color corresponds to which degree of neutrality for a country. Which specific war does the map show? Who are the belligerents? Why are some countries not colored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darer101 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal note w r t sales[edit]

"Portugal officially stayed neutral, but actively supported both the Allies by providing overseas naval bases, and Germany by selling tungsten."

There is no regulation of trade in terms of neutrality, no article in the Hague convention speaks to trade. If Portugal engaged in trade, it would actually not affect status of neutrality. From a "feeling" understanding of neutrality, this may be relevant, but from an actual definition, it is not. I think this should be removed or moved to some discussion section, if that is a thing. 78.72.87.250 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 websites I am unsure on[edit]

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/neutral-countries https://www.adducation.info/general-knowledge-politics-religion/all-neutral-countries/ 81.101.7.190 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wheres indonesia?[edit]

why indonesia doesnt mention it in this article? despite indonesia has recently transformed into a neutral country. especially in the wake of fall of suharto. is indonesia a neutral country or not? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:9CE4:D84C:8192:D6F8 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of statement not supported by cited source, historically inaccurate[edit]

I have removed this sentence from the lead section:

Adopting a policy of neutrality is generally a strong security guarantee; credible neutrality has only been violated during the First and Second World Wars, as in the case of Belgium.^[1]

At best a matter of opinion presented as an uncontroversial fact, it is not even supported by the cited source, and is historically inaccurate. It is easy to find violations of credible neutrality long before the 1st and 2nd World Wars.

If someone wants to start a new section on the objective security value of neutrality - a highly debated topic - they can do so, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines about neutrality and reliable sources.Ttocserp 12:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Ttocserp 12:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gärtner, Heinz (2023). "Great Power Conflict". China and Eurasian powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy and Cyberspace. Mher Sahakyan. New York: Routledge. pp. xxv. ISBN 978-1-003-35258-7. OCLC 1353290533.

India?[edit]

india is also neutral? 91.129.100.53 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[:32-1] Gärtner, Heinz (2023). "Great Power Conflict". China and Eurasian powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy and Cyberspace. Mher Sahakyan. New York: Routledge. pp. xxv. ISBN 978-1-003-35258-7. OCLC 1353290533.

[1]