Talk:Rambouillet Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kosovo Portal

Rambouillet Agreement is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)