Talk:Protocol II

International relations: United Nations / Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Military history

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

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

Human rights Stub‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge Proposal[edit]

Seems like this page has been neglected since it was created, and the commentary that was supposed to fill it out never got added. This sounds to me like there is the possibility there isn't much to add in the first place. Perhaps we should just roll this up into Geneva Conventions and recreate the article when the subject has enough meat to warrant its own article. hateless 07:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article will soon be expanded in line with Protocol I and Protocol II. Thomas Blomberg 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable omissions to the notable exceptions[edit]

The idea of calling some exceptions "notable" while ignoring others is loaded, and designed to paint a specific picture. I think that text should be removed, as it fails to meet NPOV standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing or inaccurate details?[edit]

My first thought is that this page is a work-in-progress as it looks almost identical to the protocol 1 page. What confuses me is it states that the united states was one of the notable countries that didn't sign this protocol in 1977, but then goes on to say that they did sign it in 1977 and the text looks identical to the protocol 1 page. If I had the info to correct this I would, but I came here to learn and am only more confused. Donb316 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update, with further research I can see that the confusion was between the difference between signing and ratifying. Perhaps this article should mention the difference between these two steps. by changing the text from "which signifies an intention to work towards ratifying it" to something like "which signifies an intention to work towards ratification, a necessary step required before it becomes law."

I admit my own ignorance caused the confusion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find these articles confusing. Donb316 (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wrong map[edit]

in the world map , indian map is not shown correctly it is showing jammu and kashmir in the pakistan map.change the map or delete it only refer to official map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.159.16 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]