Talk:Bishkek Protocol

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Bishkek Protocol is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armenia Low‑importance

	Bishkek Protocol is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Low‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics 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.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Artsakh Mid‑importance

	Bishkek Protocol is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

PACE condemned killing of 9-year-old[edit]

The breach in protocol in which 9-year-old Fariz Badalov was killed by an Armenian Armed Forces sniper. Was just recently condemned by PACE, I added this to the article. See here for the resolution.Neftchi (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? Unfortunately dozens of civilians, Armenian and Azerbaijani, have been killed in the almost two decades since the cease fire went into effect. This particular case is no different and the partial wording of the PACE resolution seems to be drawn up and supported by the same twenty or so Azerbaijani and Turkish parliamentarians who author these resolutions against Armenia ("Khojaly Genocide", Stepanakert Airport, etc.) and are largely meaningless and barely worth of mention.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular case did cause a stirr and was worthy to be brought up during PACE discussion and a resolution was adopted on this matter. This is sourced information Marshall, you cannot remove it simply because you dont like it.Neftchi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At best, it has registered as a very tiny blip on the radar of the news media, and even then mostly those outlets reporting from Azerbaijan. Regardless of which, it is certainly nowhere near the most egregious violation of the cease fire, since so many have died over the past few years and I wouldn't doubt that similar deaths have also been brought to the attention to international bodies and condemned elsewhere.

Neftchi, it is becoming ever more difficult to assume good faith with your edits as they show a consistent failure in the proper reading and interpretation of sources and material and willful violations of Wikipedia's most basic principles and ones which you should be more than familiar with. I know I have told you this before but if in future you demonstrate a similar inability to contribute constructively and continue to engage in edits which most other editors would object to, I will feel compelled to report your edits to the administrators so that they may handle the situation as best they see fit.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a blip as you claim. How on earth did PACE get a hold of it, not to mention adopt a resolution on it. If you have other similar examples, add them, as long as they are supported by objective sources. And marshal, your personal opinion on me does not really matter here. You continuously failed to reach consensus before you make edits. So I ask you not to make any personal threats against me. Neftchi (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....? Perhaps it was because that it wasn't PACE that got hold of it, but the people who drafted the resolution, namely the representatives from Azerbaijan, from where that news piece has received the widest dissemination. I'm not going to add any single instance of a cease fire violation because there are far too many to list and this is not the proper article to document such events. And I am not making any personal comments, but merely echoing what countless administrators have already warned you about for the past few years. I have refrained from reporting your problematic edits in the past with hopes that you would change your ways but your current contributions don't provide much encouragement to that belief. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishkek Protocol[edit]

Here is Pishkek Protocol original English version, which isn't in this article: Here is something else, but not Bishkek protocol.--Արամ Սողոմոնյան (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Golbez (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to be an abbreviated version of the text at [1]. Both mention a "February 18, 1994 Protocol". What is it? However, I agree with the first poster, much of the content of this article is not supported by content of the cited text of the Bishkek Protocol. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the recently added pov tag on the article because no accompanying reasoning had been given on this talk page. Because of this discrepancy between the sourced wording of the Protocol and the article's content I am returning the pov tag to the article, with the reasoning being "there appears to be a serious discrepancy between the sourced wording of the Protocol and the article's current content, with claims being made that are not supported by the text of the actual Protocol". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cited source for the "protocol contains the following provisions" text: [2]. However, the source makes no such claim, the text is actually derived from the opinions of former US Ambassador John J. Maresca regarding the general principles he asserts are held by both sides in the conflict (or rather, were held in 1996). The content of the ceasefire agreement / Bishkek Protocol is not mentioned in the AI article. So I am going to delete that section from this article as off topic material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this deletion I don't see a need for the npov tag to remain, but I'll keep it there for now incase the above edit is challenged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]