Talk:Rambouillet Agreement

Untitled

Yipe! 140,000 bytes for the raw unannotated text of an agreement that had essentially 0 historical importance other than the fact that it never went into effect? It is my opinion that raw source material like this isn't really appropriate for inclusion an encyclopedia, it should at the very least have something added to it to give the reader insight into what it's all about. If I want to read the raw text of the Rambouillet Agreement, I would not go to an encyclopedia to find it; I would go to an encyclopedia to learn about it.

If nobody speaks up in its defence, I'm going to remove the raw text and leave just the first paragraph that talks about the agreement's context. Bryan Derksen, Sunday, April 7, 2002

I think most people are aware of my view about just dumping PD material onto the 'pedia. This is a good case to follow what wikipedia is not guideline number 12. --maveric149

I don't think it belongs, either. Else why not upload The Picture of Dorian Grey for our Oscar Wilde article? We're building an encyclopedia, not a library. My $.02. Koyaanis Qatsi, Sunday, April 7, 2002

Alrighty, off it goes then. Let History be its keeper. Bryan Derksen, Sunday, April 7, 2002

There is no date on the US document pointed to. This leads to confusion because there's at least two distinct texts. There's the one that the Contact Group referred to on the 23rd February (http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/contact-g/default.asp?content_id=3560) and there's the one on the US government site. Themos (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an Agreement

This was an ultimatum, not an agreement. Right? (LAz17 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)).

A republican foreign-policy aide later told a think tank that he'd heard a US official say:

1. the word republican isn't capitalized. I assume it refers to a member? congressman? of the US Republican party?

2. This is a think tank, quoting an UNNAMED foreign-policy aide, quoting an UNNAMED "US official" saying something. That's not encyclopedic, it's not even journalism, it's chinese whispers, and what a surprise, it's anti-US propaganda aswell. Who'd a thunk it? CLEANUP OR DELETION (of the whole article) BADLY NEEDED --LeedsKing (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is propaganda. And the Article doesn´t mention who the members of the contact group was. That must be relevant, they were some of the main players. Italy, Germany, Russia, US, UK and France if my memory serves me right. --95.34.224.245 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncited source

This article is lifted essentially word for word from Beyond Guns and Steel: A War Termination Strategy by Dominic J. Caraccilo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.58.98 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rambouillet Agreement. 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/20070926234216/http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/contact-g/default.asp?content_id=3560 to http://www.ohr.int/other-doc/contact-g/default.asp?content_id=3560

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)