Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 → Archive 30


Edit request - Politcal parties section - remove

The Political parties was added by one user, is being opposed in principle now by at least two editors, and contains unexamined content, and in the case of Scottish party, incomplete content, without a link, and od dubious notability, since a lodged motion is not synonymous with any action taken by the legilsative body. It's better to skip having this section, than selectively (and badly) source a handful. Just this selectivity is POV. Plus, political parties are not particularly transparent when it comes to pronouncements of their politicians -- do they really represent parties? Are they coherent and definiteve positions of parties? Or individual reactions? We don't source individuals, so perhaps these pronouncements shoudl be just deleted. --Mareklug talk 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Please remove the section Political parties from the article for reasons elucidated above. --Mareklug talk 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. This is a radical proposal which should be condemned. We have reactions of seven parties and over twelve citations, so to delete all of this information is wasteful and does not help the reader one bit. These particular parties are important because they represent regions which have activity of separatism to some degree, so of course the Kosovo situation is important to the respective parties as it could be a precedent that they may follow in order to acheive their independence. Just because one entry (Scotland) is not up to date does not mean we should throw out the others. I hope that when the proposer finds the first dead link in the states which recognize category, he promptly proposes that the entire category be deleted because after all "better to skip having this section, than selectively (and badly) source a handful." --Tocino 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A "radical proposal which should be condemned"? No soapboxing please. It's enough to "strongly disagree". He recommended something controversial in a Wikipedia article, not a fatwa against someone or violent revolution. - Revolving Bugbear 21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


  • strong agree Political parties are not classed as international reactions. They are national, to a specific country. Also this has been brought up before, long before the SNP edit request. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree: I don't consider political parties as an international reaction because these parties do not reach between countries, nor have people heard about most of these parties; to the average joe it's just another person with some party affliation that was quoted for saying "Kosova" or "kosovo", it's not worth noting. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
note Tocinos opposition seems to be in bad faith and a bit extreme. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
note It is not bad faith to oppose the deletion of seven entries and over twelve sources. --Tocino 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree for as long as we keep statements by obscure governments in exile.--Avala (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to keep statements by obscure governments-in-exile. By the same token, I'm not sure why we keep statements of regions which have no international sovereignty - either declared or de facto, like Republika Srpska. --alchaemia (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Avala, what do you mean? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I mean Chechen Republic of Ichkeria which is not a republic as the name suggests but a government in exile.--Avala (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


I understand you now. Lets compromise then, lets remove political parties but keep Govts in exile. Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we get rid of both? Kosova2008 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Conference to discuss Kosovo

This is a little old, but according to these sources: [1] [2] [3] there will be a collective decision by the foreign ministers from the OIC on recognition. At the very least the meeting could be a greenlight for nations which haven't recognized Kosovo like Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia. All the same I think this would merit a mention. It seems likely several Islamic nations will decide following this meeting or decide at this meeting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


After looking at them sources, i think we have enough ot put in an edit request for the OIC. I don't think i can as ive had too much to drink :p
If someone puts in an edit request i'll most likey agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Point of order - the OIC website says the meeting is 18-20 June, NOT July, as the Bangladeshi articles say [4]. Canadian Bobby (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is what your link says Canadian Bobby: "

16-18 June 2008

OIC Business Forum and 12th Private Sector

Meeting for the Promotion of Trade and Joint

Venture Investment among Islamic Countries Kampala, Republic of Uganda " --Kosova2008 (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to "calendar of meetings" on the homepage menu bar:

18-20 June 2008 35th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) Kampala, Republic of Uganda

Canadian Bobby (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was right underneath it, I didn't see it. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish National Party edit request

This item in Poitical parties section's table needs more than link maintenance (the link is broken); it needs rewriting. At the time of its addtion a source was used which alegedly falsified the actual news. We can't examine that claim, as the source is no longer at the link we have. Aside from resourcing, we need to add also information which was omitted. This edit proposal seeks to address all these issues.

Please replace:

|- | Scottish National Party || Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament that congratulated Kosovo on its decision to separate from Serbia.[1] |}

with:

|- | Scottish National Party || Aileen Campbell, of the SNP, lodged the following motion in the Scottish Parliament:

  • "S3M-1363 Aileen Campbell: Kosovan Independence—That the Parliament congratulates Kosova on achieving her independence; notes that the will of the people of Kosova has prevailed; fully recognises Kosova as a member of the international community; believes that independence in Europe is the normal state for European nations, and further believes that there should to be a future for both Kosova and Serbia within the European Union"

The motion was subsequently ammended as follows:

  • "S3M-1363.1 Murdo Fraser: Kosovan Independence—As an amendment to motion (S3M-1363) in the name of Aileen Campbell, leave out from "believes that independence" to end and insert "and welcomes the sudden interest being taken by SNP politicians in the welfare of the people of Kosova which stands in stark contrast to the First Minister who, as SNP Leader in 1999, condemned as "unpardonable folly" the NATO intervention to protect the Kosovan people against Serbian aggression.""

The motion S3M-1363 was subsequently opposed with the following motion:

  • "S3M-1373 George Foulkes: Kosovo—That the Parliament believes that Kosovo is now safe and stable because of the NATO-led campaign in 1999 after aggressions there resulted in the death of around 10,000 ethnic Albanians and 3,000 ethnic Serbians; remembers that Alex Salmond described this action as "misguided policy" and "unpardonable folly"; believes that the conclusive action of the Labour-led UK Government helped to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the Balkans, further loss of life and a humanitarian crisis; considers that it is in part because of this decisive action in stark contrast to the SNP’s defeatist approach at the time that we see Kosovans celebrating independence in the streets of Pristina waving Union Jacks and American flags; further believes that the international intervention took place because of the atrocities against an ethnic minority within Serbia, not in order to free an oppressed nation from occupation; accepts that unilateral independence for Kosovo was not the ideal solution, and considers that the celebratory tone of Aileen Campbell’s motion, S3M-1363, is misguided at best and political opportunism in the extreme."

There is no information how the Parliament acted on these proposals (or otherwise) regarding Kosovo, if it acted at all.[2] |}

--Mareklug talk 13:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • disagree far too much information here. The SNP is not that important to the article. Needs to be much shorter and give the encyclopedic information in a nutshell rather that an essay. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to paraphrase and rewrite what was motioned, because it will introduce falsities and things like Kosova/Kosovo being rewritten. It's safer to just quote what happened. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, right? The Parliament might not have acted at all, and perhaps, if it did not, this item is just not notable. Personally, I would remove the political parties. User Tocino added the whole section. I don't know of anyone on record supporting sourcing parties. --Mareklug talk 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean by quoting, because this is more NPOV. But could we have three shorter sentences instead of three paragraphs like sentences? I just think its a bit too long for the article. Also i agree that political parties should be removed too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ian, I have no clue how to make the motions themselves shorter. Those are quoted in full. Do you want to make my sentences, not the quotes, shorter? --Mareklug talk 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What im trying to say is not to quote the motions, but make a sentence explaining each motion.

eg for the first motion

  • Aileen Campbell from the SNP announced that "the (Scottish) Parliament congratulates Kosovo on achieving her independence"

Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with both proposals. User:Mareklug's proposal is way too long. Ijanderson977's has Kosova in it and I am strongly opposed to that POV word being in the article. I would rather have a dead link than see Kosova in the Scotland entry. --Tocino 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that the wording is in a quote -- according to academic standards, we quote things as they are said. The quote is clearly about Kosovo; what word Campbell chooses is indicative of her POV, but not Wikipedia's. - Revolving Bugbear 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
yeh i just copied it from Mareklugs proposal. I didnt see it said "a" Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be very confused. Mine was not a proposal. It was an example of one of the several motions by the SNP, therefore its a quarter of a proposal. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, Kosovo is also very POV, but I guess when it suits you, it's fine. --alchaemia (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. A Google News search for Kosovo gets 7,066 results [5] , while Kosova only gets 90 results [6]. Kosovo is generally acceptable to both sides, while Kosova is not. Do you see me trying to put Kosovo and Metohija everywhere in the article, even though Kosovo and Metohija is the proper name of the Serbian province? --Tocino 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think what you meant to say was that "the Republic of Kosovo is the proper English name of the independent country". ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, the only "province" that Serbia has is named Vojvodina; I hope you aren't still using 2007 maps considering that all atlases and maps of 2008 and up include Kosova; unless of course they are made in Belgrade. Kosova2008 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, I've never heard of such a "province", much less of such a "Serbian province." I'm aware of one, but it's name is Vojvodina. The name Kosovo is POV because it was taken from the Serbian Kosovo, and not the Albanian Kosova. --alchaemia (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You guys must not be aware that 150 of the 192 UN member states recognize Kosovo and Metohija as a Serbian province. --Tocino 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino you are alluding yourself with numbers. The most powerful, richest, and most developed countries recognize the newborn Republic of Kosova. Our partners have assured us that Russia or China will not intervene to push their agenda. No matter what you say or do you can't bring Republic of Kosova under the control of Republic of Serbia. We have the most powerful country in the world as our main ally, the United States of America. I know that you and your Serbian friends have this mythical belief that Russia and China will rule the world but facts speak loud and clear; America's military budget is bigger than the next 17 most powerful countries budget combined together. Get real, America has over 500 known bases and possibly another 170-200 secret bases; it doesn't surprise me when I read stories of people being kidnapped and being found in Iraq without anyones knowledge --- the people are real, and their power is incomprehensible. You will notice that even the tone in Belgrade will change, we are prospering and enjoying the show as Serbian politicians are fighting each other over power. Again, if you want to continue this reply at my talkpage and we will continue this there. --Kosova2008 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue this tit-for-tat either but just for full disclosure I am not Serbian and I do not have a drop of Slavic blood in my system as far as I know, but I do confess to having a strong interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. --Tocino 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
@ Kosova2008 Whats all this to do with American bases and America been the most powerful country in the world. Whats America going to do if China declares war. America is fucked. Also Russia has more Nukes than America. I admit America is powerful, but your over estimating America. The USA/NATO/EU/Kosovo combined have only got 42 countries to recognise Kosovo in 3 and half months. Thats poor. So America isn't that powerful, as it would have influenced more countries already. Also i don't see what this has to do with the article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request - Denmark

Change the link for Denmark to Source from current dead link. --Kosova2008 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

please change Denmark from this

| 14 ||  Denmark[3] || 2008-02-21 || Ambassador of Denmark to Kosovo, subordinate to the Embassy in Vienna, Austria from 6 March 2008[4]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

to this

| 14 ||  Denmark[5] || 2008-02-21 || Ambassador of Denmark to Kosovo, subordinate to the Embassy in Vienna, Austria from 6 March 2008[6]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

Maintenance edit. Check the source. It is uncontroversial. Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Please remember to do the little things like using citation templates when making requests like this. Might as well take two steps in the right direction rather than one... Happy‑melon 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Latvia diplomatic relations with Kosovo

Latvia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations today 10th of June 2008 [7] BalkanInsight reports --Digitalpaper (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

please change Latvia from

| 10 ||  Latvia[7] || 2008-02-20 || || European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

to this

| 10 ||  Latvia[8] || 2008-02-20 ||Latvia and the Kosovar Government established diplomatic relations on 10 June 2008[9]|| European Union EU member state
NATO member state |-

Uncontroversial edit Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

New statement from Cyprus.--Avala (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia, Cyprus say Kosovo self-rule failing to improve stability[8]

14:51 | 09/ 06/ 2008

"Cyprus does not intend to recognize Kosovo as an independent state," Kyprianou said, adding that the decision on Kosovo "should be reached within the UN framework and with Serbia's direct participation."

So, essentially, a reiteration of their old position. Nothing new here. --alchaemia (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The meeting between Russia and Cyprus also called for fresh talks between Prishtina & Belgrade. Kosova2008 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Has the proposal been accepted by Pristina and Belgrade? What does it suggest?--Avala (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure but in exchange Russia has to grant Republic of Chechnya independence. Kosova2008 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is, as User:Mareklug would say, "bullshit". Chechnya is a proud member of the Russian Federation and nothing suggests that the opposite is true. --Tocino 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's called sarcasm my dear Serbian friend, please do not get so worked up over one sentence. I hope you do not condemn my sentence as you did above. In hope that you will see the sunny side of this I will include a smiley face, ;) . Kosova2008 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, Tocino is, at the very least, funny. A proud member of the Russian Federation? Haha... not even Monty Python could make me laugh like this. --alchaemia (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The less such proud members we have the better, both for us and for them. However, this is not a forum. Colchicum (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm i always thought Tocino was American not Serbian? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I thought that Tito was German. Come on man, it's as plain as the nose in the face that he is a Serb, and a hardline one at that. --alchaemia (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Tocino is American. Ask him. Look what he said here ::I'm not going to continue this tit-for-tat either but just for full disclosure I am not Serbian and I do not have a drop of Slavic blood in my system as far as I know, but I do confess to having a strong interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Tocino 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to be Serbian to oppose Kosovo. And you can be Serbian and support Kosovo too. Amazing isn't it. Freedom of speech Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comments from Montenegrin leaders

The Vice President of the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists, Svetozar Marović has said: "We are in a specific situation, because Montenegro is populated by both Serbs and Albanians and this issue must be approached with a lot of attention and sensitivity. All the more so because the reality in Kosovo is contrary to international standards. Our policy must be oriented towards internal stability and we must bear in mind historic and good neighborly and economic links with Serbia. We must also take care not to jeopardize Serbia's economic stability by any gesture of ours." The part about Kosovo not meeting international standards stands out.

Also Prime Minister Milo Đukanović said: "We are aware that there were many instances throughout history when Montenegro followed interests of others, and we have great respect for our joint history with the Serb nation as we have jointly inhabited this region for centuries, but this does not give anyone the right to expect, not even Serbia, that Montenegro will sacrifice its interests to those of Serbia. Our interests are the European Union and NATO and we are aware that, on that path, we should develop the maximum of cooperation in the region and we are fully prepared for this. We are not ready to share illusions and follow anyone's delusions, regardless of from where they are coming. We may be prepared to understand them, but not to follow them and thus demonstrate closeness." So the PM is saying that they will not fold to pressure from Serbia or USA/EU/NATO, yet Montenegro wants to cooperate with both of these entities.

Source: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/region-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=09&nav_id=50950

--Tocino 22:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So basically they are trying not to upset anyone and that they will not be persuaded by anyone. Their decision will be Montenegro's, not anyone else's Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically. But I think Marović's comments in particular suggest that Montenegro is leaning towards not recognizing. --Tocino 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, its just that they have both Serbian and Albanian populations. Montenegro really wants NATO and EU intergration. They probably will recognise eventually, they are just going to take a long time about doing it. A really long time. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
However who knows ? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it's speculation at this point. But do you think the comments warrant a place in the article? --Tocino 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You want speculations to be put in the article? Montenegro will follow EU/NATO majority. Media also speculated that they will recognize in 16 June. There was a meeting between foreign minister of both countries Kosovo and Montenegro this month. --Digitalpaper (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

@Tocinohmmm Well what 2 or 3 points could we add to Montenegro first? Lets pick out the main points from that source. What do you think should be added to Montenegro? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to add the source, its just statement after statement, If yes then lets bring back Ukraine latest statement position, and all other sources that have been found and not being agreed to be updated. I propose to wait and see what happens after 16 June. --Digitalpaper (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
fair enough. Ive just got this feeling that Montenegro wont recognise then. Even though i want them to ;( Ijanderson977 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh they will, they will, believe me. They want to become members of the EU and NATO, and we all know how things are run there and who has the main voice in those bodies. --alchaemia (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So far as to what has been said by Montenegro and speculated, this is nothing new. They indeed face a conundrum: recognize and fall in line with Euro-Atlantic institutions which they seek to join plus pleasing the Albanian population inside their borders, or risk inflaming their Serbian constituencies and close historic and cultural ties to Serbia. I can only imagine that this issue presents a hard decision to make. I wouldn't want to have to be in the place of anyone who has a say in recognizing or not in that nation. The evidence, including this new info, suggests a still non-committal response and should be regarded as such. It is the reaction that most nations outside the Euro-Atlantic structures or economic powers (but some friendly to said counties), or those whom are wavering on recognition have set as policy: Calling for new negotiations or delaying or not even taking action. I wouldn't be surprised if either they recognized or didn't. Both are equally possible, considering Montenegro's history, location, future aspirations, and economics. Being an EU or NATO member doesn't say you have to recognize Kosovo, as Romania, Slovakia, Malta, Spain, Portugal (iffy), Cyprus, and Greece have shown. The UN is a similar, but different story (enough of the General Assembly vote to seat Kosovo, it can override a security council veto, but that is hard to attain), but still Montenegro is under no obligations to either recognize or not recognize, even if the UN seats Kosovo (example Israel, which is not universally recognized even though it is a UN member, as to EU/NATO, I see a veto from some non-recognizing nation under the current circumstances a la the Greece-Macedonia situation). I am not going to speculate further than this. Just my 2 Cents/2 Kopecs/2 Centavos/(or fill in whatever else monetary subdivision here :P). Ajbenj (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis Ajbenj. I'm inclined to believe that they will recognize, but it remains unclear in what timeframe. It could be soon... it could be in months, years. I'm sure that they are hesitant - and with good reason. A lot of their population is ethnically Serb and they are still not hapy about Montenegro's independence. On the other hand, there is a sizable Albanian minority as well, and they are situated in the very strategically important (for tourism) town of Ulqin/Ulcinj. A lot of Montengro's tourists are also Kosovar, so that might play some role as well. At the very least, they'll recognize the documents issues by the Republic which should offer some tacit support. All in all, it is tricky and how it'll play out - remains to be seen. I'm sure, however, that Montenegro will eventually recognize. No matter how much they deny it, there is pressure and it is groing. --alchaemia (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Cuba link maintenance

{{editprotect}}

Please change the current entry from:

|  Cuba[10] || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[10] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[11] || |-

to:

|  Cuba || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[12] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[13][14] ||

This is a non-controversial edit request. --Tocino 19:34, 5 June 2008 9UTC)

Agreed Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done - Revolving Bugbear 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you had no standing to carry out that proposed edit before editors could react to it. The time elapsed between the user proposing the edit and your "Done" is about half an hour, 32 minutes, to be precise. As it happens, I have serious misgivings about this item, including its actual content and discrepancies between what it says and what its sources say, and I spent all of that half hour and more researching and making notes, and attempting to read the sources, one of which is in some unidentified language. Now, coming here to write it on the page, I discover that it was expedited. This is highly irregular and unjustified. My reasoning follows shortly. I suggest you self-revert in good faith. --Mareklug talk 20:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a non-controversial edit Marek. So thats why he performed the edit. If it had been something controversial, he would have waited for others to respond. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Your saying so does not make it so, I'm sorry, Ian. I just took the time to write about this at length on Revolving Bugbear's talk page, and requested that he revert himself. I suggest everybody reads what I wrote. I will not copy and paste it here, for clarity's sake. But the edit was not in the least what it was represented to be, a straightforward "link maintenance". Sources were dropped and replaced. A source in a strange language replaced a source in Spanish. Switching sources without saying so is not link maintenance. And I am not even addressing the fact, of what the Cuba entry claims, or what the sources actually say, which happens to be at odds with what the entry says. We have a mess here. More on this later. I can't keep up with bogus editprotects Tocino is coming up with and you are rubberstamping without examining the content. Some editing. --Mareklug talk 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

☒N Undone - Revolving Bugbear 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

@Marek. Good point, i didn't look at it like that. Switching source can be controversial. Im not sure if the edit should still go ahead. Yes the sources was presented as "non-controversial", which is not 100% true. What should we do from here? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Start a new section on Cuba.
  2. Read the sources carefully. (Where they do exist, or are accessible. The ones we have and the new ones Tocino switched to.)
  3. Obtain translation for the foreign source(s).
  4. Write down point-by-point what Wikipedia writeup says and what the sources say. This could be done in a table.
  5. Remove any OR (stuff that we can't source).
  6. Decide if there's anything there to keep.
  7. Issue an editprotect.
I think that covers it, without prejudicing what we actually determine, although I have a very good idea of what to expect, as I spent a long time examining all this just now. But I'll bide my time. --Mareklug talk 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


With out sounding stupid. From the sources, what is Cuba's position? They disagree why? As i think the most encyclopedic piece of information to include, is why Cuba doesn't recognise Kosovo. Im not too sure myself. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who knows? Perhaps it's because they respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of fellow nations. Maybe it's because they want to do the opposite of USA. Maybe it's a bit of both. All we know is that Fidel Castro, a foreign policy advisor and a highly influential character, has written very negatively about the declaration. --Tocino 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that these speculations are wild OR on your part, and it is telling that all you can tell about Castro's essay is that he wrote negatively, but even you have no idea what he wrote, since a) our Spanish link to what he wrote is gone, b) the non-Spanish link no one can understand (but it is short enough so we know it is not what he wrote only some note about it). And lastly, his writing even very negatively about the declaration (which you haven't documented yet, either) in no way automatically is Cuba's official position. In fact, St. Kitts-Nevis tells us, that it is not. So we have evidence, which you and user Avala have been suppressing -- that Cuba, in fact, has not acted officially. This is good enough reason to rollback your stealth editprotect which you falsely labeled "link maintenance" and seriously, thoroughly examine what we know about Cuba and how it is sourced. And, perhaps, find other sources. --Mareklug talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The non-Spanish link is Catalan. Catalan is one of the most popular WPs as it has over 100,000 articles, so to call it an odd language is insulting. It says the same thing that the previous link said, that Fidel thinks Javier is lousy and father of independence of Kosovo, and that the declaration may influence Catalonia and Euskal Herria to proclaim independence. You say that Sergey Lavrov does not speak on behalf of the Big Three (Russia, China, India) when the other two foreign ministers are sitting right besides him and nodding their heads in agreement, while Lavrov declares, "Speaking on behald of Russia, China, and India..." yet you believe that little St. Kitts & Nevis can speak on behalf of all of the Carribean nations when it provides no evidence for its position. --Tocino 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to provide the only link for a crucial claim in Catalan without even identifying the language. The cite family of templates has a nifty slot just for that, plus the {{ca icon}} is used manually on external links to sources in Catalan. If anything is insulting, it is neglecting to provide this required mark-up and finding fault in fellow editors for having difficulty deciphering what language is encoding the content like a cypher. And no Catalan auto-translation tools are conspicuous and freely available on the net that I could find, so extracting sense from your source for an English-speaking reader is quite a proposition, and being able to make out vaguely what it might be saying is not acceptable transparency of sourcing. I find it ironic that such impediment and obfuscation (for that is what it amounts to) was matter of course offered by an editor who loudly argued how a certain spelling of Kosovo's capital is unacceptable because it's not in English. Furthermore, even the synopsis given above (especially what Castro is alleged to have written) in no way corresponds to the original research on your and Avala's part, where a passage to the effect "Fidel Castro spoke in his capacity as..." tries hard to make it seem to be more than it was sourced to be. Any OR needs to be struck from the article, and doing so requires no further consensus-building -- OR violates Wikipedia policy and any reading administrator may remove it on sight, since any editor is obligated to do so whenever possible. I hope this is done swiftly, and we can move on to discussing Cuba on the merits of sourced information. Which brings me to this request: please don't confuse the representing of other countries with the reporting of what other countries did. One of the functions of diplomats is monitoring diplomatic activity in the region. Clearly, an assessment of no such activity having taken place regarding the Kosovo declaration of independence is both plausible and verifiable by linking what a regional Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially said on this score, in its own document. --Mareklug talk 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You say no OR, but you are the editor who insisted on having Macedonia in the "About to recognize" category when all they said was "we would consider the position of NATO/EU allies". You were making an assumption that recognition was imminent just because of this comment, despite the fact that NATO/EU allies and neighbours such as Greece and Romania both opposed. A few months have passed and Macedonia has done nothing. Thankfully, you did not get your way on this. --Tocino 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if I, or anyone else, made some other mistake, somewhere, which is certainly possible, you are now making an obfuscating comment, trying to lead us astray like a mother fox leading the hunters away from her lodge. Macedonia does not have anything to do with justifying your Cuba edit. We are talking about Cuba. And if your best defense is, well you make mistakes too, then that amounts to an admission that OR is what we have here, and that it should be removed from the article expeditiously. As for the Macedonia circumstance, aside from the fact that a country may be about to recognize indefinitely (look at Saudi Arabia -- and the Czech Republic did it overnight, as did Lithuania after a long wait), the Macedonia writeup came about from a complex situation, and a misreading of a date for a meeting that took place on the same day in 2007 and 2008. At the time of the edit I thought I was sourcing today's news, not the one from a year ago. This was explained in the talk page, and we found other content during that episode, which oddly was fully congruent with the 2007 item, as all Kosovo recognition content on Macedonia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently invokes its full supporting the Ahtisaari plan (de facto independence). And we ended up using that 2007 item, to give full context some newer item, which we would not have found, had we not had to look closely. Furthermore, I admitted my error at the time. It's all in the archives. It would be equally appropriate, if you ould back out of defending your untenable OR edits, and let us fix the article without further delay. Please. --Mareklug talk 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
About to recognize indifinitely is an oxymoron. The article would be well served if the title was changed back to the original version of "States which have declared formal intent to recognize" which is better English, more definite, and leaves less wiggle room. But that is a seperate can of worms. Meanwhile there is no OR in the current Cuba entry. You are the only one who is making the claim that Fidel is not a powerful person and who's words are hollow. Fidel, a foreign policy advisor, writes negatively about the declaration constitutes a reaction from the nation of Cuba. Now it would be appropriate if you stopped your obstructing and allowed us to fix dead links in the article. Please. --Tocino 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a reaction from Cuba, and only that. No one has sourced it to be an official reaction BY Cuba, the state, the government. But we have on hand a source by a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs that implies it was not. Please allow these facts to be represented in the article as they are, not as you would like them to be, or outright censoring the second one. And please don't lie. I already documented on this talk page, which is archived, that the phrasing you called then and now "original" was your edit and about a tenth way that grouping was designated. Please let us remove OR from Cuba write-up. And please stop moving text on this talk page to make it less readable. --Mareklug talk 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that Fidel's words are a reaction from Cuba. Now that we have this issue settled can we move on? Also the original title "States which are have declared formal intent to recognize" was in place for months, without objection, until you changed it in a massive edit of yours shortly before the article was locked. And finally would you please stop moving your comments ahead of mine. I responded to ljanderson six hours before you did, so I am entitled to having my comments below his. --Tocino 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, no one ever denied that Fidel Castro is in Cuba. We had reactions, many, from Czech Republic, before we had a reaction by the Czech Republic, which obviated them all. We have no reaction though yet by Cuba. Your glossing this is clutching at OR. This OR needs to go. You have been unable to source your OR that Castro's journalistic activity is synonymous with official activity by Cuba's government. And we have St. Kitts-Nevis report, that implies that it is not. We have nothing that implies that it is. Once again, no lies, please: Your introduction of the title you want was perhaps unchanged for a long time, but information has no tenure on Wikipedia, and improvements are welcome. Why I improved this particular section head is obvious and has been defended to death, and is in the archive. Basically, there is nothing formal in diplomacy regarding intent. Intent is subjective, and often concealed. We are only interested in culling the long list of every state that has not yet officially recognized and present a short cache of those that are about to. That's all. Ascribing any other significance to that list is unjustified, just as it's unjustified for you to feel a sense of entitlement for having answered first, and placing things in chronological rather than readable order. You server the reader badly by orphaning my small reply with Bugbear's addendum, moving it way out from the text it addresses, making the indentation pointless. Whereas this thread follows next with no harm. DO no harm, Tocino. Quit ORing. ORing is doing harm. --Mareklug talk 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Fidel is a foreign policy advisor therefore his reaction is also that of the Cuban government's. --Tocino 22:46, 9 June 2008 )(UTC)
And Hillary is a US Senator, but that does not make her campaigning for US Presidency an act of U.S. Senate! And Rafa Nadal is a citizen of Spain, but that does not mean that Spain won the French Open! Stop insisting on your OR that Castro's journalistic activity = Cuba's official state, diplomatic activity. --Mareklug talk 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Terrible comparison. Fidel is not some random senator. If anything Fidel is like what Condolezza Rice was during the majority of the Bush 43 presidency, a foreign policy adviser who is highly influential. --Tocino 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
When the powerful Condi Rice stopped during those days at a local Starbucks and got a moccha grande, it was Condi getting a coffee, not the Government of the United States of America! DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE YET? Please stop the harmful text rearrangements on this talk page. It makes no sense to orphan small texts many screens from the immediate predecessor, while this idiotic sub-thread is only growing longer and longer and evidences your lack of evidence for your Cuba edits. You did remove the sentence that User:Leobudonov as well as I kept returning to the article, that Cuba's MFA did not produce any traffic. That was one of the last edits before article was locked. So we have full context that you are POVing this entry to the point of censorship. Do stop with the OR already -- no evidence of official government action to go along with the journalistic reaction, period. Evidence of the lack of official Cuba action, certainly (via St. Kitts-Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs monitoring of regional diplomatic activity). You have produced 0 sources for your take on the matter. --Mareklug talk 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fidel is not getting coffee from Starbucks; he's writing an essay on current events as highly influential foreign policy adviser. --Tocino 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Writing an essay does not constitute an official statement by the government. That's OR. There is no evidence to support it (citations), but there is evidence countering that, it being the St. Kitts-Nevis MFA assessment of regional lack of formal statements for or against Kosovo's independence covering all of the Caribbean. St. Kitts-Nevis is almost a neighboring country, physically, and we have no reason to doubt its neutrality or competence. Please provide a source that indicates that Castro's journalistic endeavor is official Cuban policy. I propose keeping it as a notable reaction from within Cuba, but not Cuba's. (i.e., in keeping with verifiable evidence). --Mareklug talk 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, yes it does. An essay is about as formal and official as you can get. --Tocino 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If such were the case, you would have no trouble sourcing this assertion, and you would have already, but instead we have this tiresome polemic. Please do provide verifiable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policies on reporting only verifiable information. Until you do, this characterization remains original research on your part (and User:Avala's). Might I add, sitting presidents of the Czech Republic and of the Republic of Poland have written essays, produced documents and speeches on the subject of Kosovo's independence, as you have attempted several times to insert links to these into this article. In neither case do these endeavors represent the official positions taken up in the end by the governments of CR or PL. Presumably the same may entail Cuba's position, when it finally does take one up. Please produce sources, or unsourced Cuba-related OR will be struck. --Mareklug talk 01:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if the sources say anything at all about Cuba's position. The Spanish one is gone - broken link. The other source we use (we use two, one twice) is probably in English, but I can't tell, because its says: "You are not authorized to read this content. Please log in". That is how we source Cuba right now. As for Tocino's sources (there are 3), 2 are in English and they don't say anything about Kosovo. They talk about Castro retiring and how Cuba will be governed and stuff like that. They date from 24 February, when he retired, or about then. The remaining source is in a language related to Spanish, but different. It might be Catalan. It might be Valencian. But I can't tell exactly what it says. I asked Tocino to tell us what it says. Maybe it says that Cuba has a position, or at least that Castro's essay is Cuba's position. But I don't know. I have been unable to find any source, except for the St. Kitts-Nevis foreign ministry, that would source Cuba's official reaction. --Mareklug talk 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Google, it is Catalan. - Revolving Bugbear 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Serbia's Reaction

This source kosova.com is reporting this:

"Pas 15 qershorit mund të rritet numri i vendeve që do ta njohin pavarësinë e Kosovës
Beograd, 9 qershor - Edhe Beogradi zyrtar pranon se pas 15 qershorit mund të rritet numri i vendeve që do ta njohin pavarësinë e Kosovës. Shefi i diplomacisë serbe thotë se ka informacione se "po rritet presioni" mbi disa vende që deri më tani nuk e kanë njohur Kosovën. Pas shpalljes së Kushtetutës njohje të reja mund të arrijnë nga Amerika e Jugut, vendet afrikane madje edhe nga rajoni, shkruan gazeta serbe "Veçernje novosti". "Që nga fundi i vitit të kaluar po vazhdon aksioni i koordinuar i Prishtinës, Brukselit dhe Uashingtonit që deri në fund të vitit 2008 Kosovën si shtet ta njohin 100 shtete", ka deklaruar Dushan Janjiq, nga Forumi për Marrëdhënie Etnike në Beograd.

Më shumë lajme nga Kosova"

English: Simply the newspaper "Veçernje Novosti" has reported that Dushan Janjiq from Forum of Ethnic Relations in Belgrade has said that there is a growing pressure form countries which previously were not planning on recognizing the Republic of Kosova and after June 15th it is possible for the number of recognitions to rise (from S. America, Africa, and "from the region"). What's unclear is when it says (direct quote) from "Veçernje Novosti", "from the end of last year coordinated efforts of Prishtina, Brussel and Washington have continued to raise 100 recogntions by the end of year 2008." Why would these 3 capitals lobby for recognitions before the Declaration of Kosova happened? Anyways, I think this should be included in the entry for Republic of Serbia. I'll try and find another source to back www.Kosova.com --Kosova2008 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which did that include?84.134.79.151 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Will anybody answer me?84.134.107.244 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Hello? Anyone there?84.134.115.224 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? Ari (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a question!84.134.55.136 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Calm down! What do you mean "which did that include"??? Which did what include? Nobody has answered you because your question does not make sense! Bazonka (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me. Which states did that include? 84.134.74.11 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the European Parliament

Ok so I've already posted this but nobody seems to have noticed it or wanted to further disscus it...

Shouldn't we replace:

| Europe European Parliament || On 30 May 2008 the European Parliament announced that it recognises the Republic of Kosovo as an independent nation. This was also the first time Kosovo's flag was officially hoisted at an EU institution.[15][16]

with something like:

| Europe European Parliament || During an inter-parliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the Kosovo assembly on 28 May 2008 the Kosovo delegation appeared under the flag of independent Kosovo. This has been interpreted by some, including Jelko Kacin, the EP reporter for Serbia, as the parliament's recognition of Kosovo's independence. However, there has been no official statement from the European Parliament itself.[17][18]

I believe these secondary sources are not acceptable, at least not as the entry currently reads. We can't say the EP recognized independence without any real, official sources or statements or something from the EP as a whole and not a few of it's members or officials. As i get it there was no vote, it was just a joint interparliamentary session or something, not a full session of the EP. There was a vote on Ahtisaari's plan some time ago and it passed, but that's something wholly different, whatever Doris Pack says. The plan didn't mention unilateral independence, i'm sure. Further, are we sure the EP can even 'recognize' the independence in the real meaning of it? Not 'treat Kosovo as a independent state in it's dealings' (maybe 'de facto recognition') but officially recognize? I believe those are rather different things and we should distinguish them. Is the EP technically even a international organisation? I would rather say it's an institution of an another organisation, the EU. Can individual institutions recognize a state? Even if they can, should we use the term 'recognize'? Neozeks (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Interpret by some" is not acceptable, there is a special term in WP about articles that say, "some say this" or "some x". You can't say that it is interpreted by Jelko Kacin, he is a EU official, that's a pretty [EU] direct reaction. I would oppose this change, it's too long and it's not encyclopedic Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean there are no sources? The EP adopted, by a two-thirds majority, a motion accepting the Ahtisaari Plan as the most viable solution. Independence is a by-product of said plan. --alchaemia (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kosova2008 on the wording of it Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Neozeks's wording. This is a more balanced approach. Not everyone in European Parliament accepts independence of Kosovo. --Tocino 21:3 7, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yeh not everyone agreed. But 66% on;y was needed 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • disagree Saying that Jelko Kacin interpreted it, is User:Neozeks's WP:POV. We need to maintain WP:NPOV on this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But how is then the current text NPOV? Was there a official announcement? Was there a vote on recognition? I see no sources for that. Just a few persons saying it has recognized. Important persons, no doubt, but that's not enough. Was Jelko Kacin authorised to speak in the name of the EP? Say a US senator said something was accepted in the Senate but there was no mention on a true vote taking place. Would you say it was right saying the Senate accepted that something? Yes, the EP accepted the Ahtisaari plan, i have no problem with that. But the plan was a UN sponsored plan, it was supposed to go through UN mechanisms and be accepted by the Security Council. Nowhere did the plan mention a unilateral declaration of independence. I'm not questioning that the EP supported supervised independence for Kosovo, just that supervised independence brought about through the UN decision making process and a unilateral declaration of independence are two very different things. Now, i'm not saying it won't officially recognize unilateral independence in the future(or that it has maybe de facto already recognized it), just that it doesn't follow from the past vote on the plan that it has already done so. So, until a new vote, I believe the current text doesn't stand. Neozeks (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone in group 2 ?

 Sierra Leone seems to be another country in the process of formally recognizing - according to this document. Hapsala (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good morning (well here in the Pacific time zone anyways!). Kosova Live is reporting that SL has indeed recognized (viewable here: [9]). The article is dated 13 June 2008. However Kosovo Thanjks You is awaiting confirmation from the SL MoFA and other SL diplomatic sources at this time. Ajbenj (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The first document posted by Hapsala was released by the Kosovar Foreign Ministry so I'm sure there's some type of communication between them and Sierra Leone. It's about time to put an end to this Sierra Leone waiting! :) --alchaemia (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one caveat: What does the Kosovo MoFA document say in English? Translation please? Ajbenj (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i tried to translate, hope i didn't made many mistakes and you could understand the text:

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Republic of Sierra Leone, has informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo through a verbal note, that Republic of Sierra Leone has recognized Republic of Kosovo as independent and sovereign state. The Government of Sierra Leone welcomes the Republic of Kosovo in the union of nations, is said in the verbal note of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Republic of Sierra Leone. Among other things said in the same verbal note, the Government of Sierra Leone has especially noticed the guaranties that Republic of Kosovo will be democratic and multiethnic state which will ensure the minority rights and defend the cultural heritage.

Sierra Leone is the 43rd state that has officially recognized the Republic of Kosovo as independent and sovereign state.

Albana Beqiri -

Media adviser of minister Hyseni"

If it is not clear in some parts i could rewrite it.Lilonius

Thanks for the translation. Just saw on Kosova Press's site that SL recognized and used a similar translation. Here is the source: [10].

So far, I have found 2 in-Kosovo sources saying SL has recognized, 1 in-Kosovo source attempting to confirm with SL. The translation has some grammar errors, but I can understand it. It appears, from the Kosovo government's standpoint, that SL has indeed recognized. Ajbenj (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be so. They (the Kosovo MoFA) went as far as publishing an official document stating that recognition has happened. We'll find out soon. --alchaemia (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotect}} Please add to the list of countries, which have recognised.

| 43 ||  Sierra Leone[19] || 2008-05-31 || || |-

Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The source is okay, but I think I will await a few hours before handling this edit request. That is because I've just checked enthusiastic Kosovo-recognition website kosovothanksyou.com and they state that they still don't have a definite confirmation of Sierra Leone's recognition. Therefore, I think it's better to see some feedback from other users on the suitability of this edit request for the moment. Húsönd 13:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hapsala that Sierra Leone should be put under "States which are about to formally recognise Kosovo" until formal recognition has been confirmed. Right now, Sierra Leone is not included in any of the lists of the article. --217.21.232.237 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
New Developement: The Kosovo President website lists Sierra Leone as a recognizing country: http://www.president-ksgov.net/?id=5,67,67,67,a,748 Exo (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeh add SL to states which have recognised and update UN to 43 Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please change the date of Sierra Leone's recognition from 31st May to 13th June. (Please take more care in future when requesting additions.)
Also the 2nd paragraph in the article must change to "As of June 13 2008, 43 of 192..."
Change the UN section to read "Member states (43/192)".
Sierra Leone is a member of the OIC, so update the OIC section to read "Member states (6/57)" and add an asterisk after Sierra Leone's name in the list of states (hidden until Show is clicked).
Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't thoruugh Bazonka. Did I miss any of your request? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - two bits still to do. In the UN section, update the numbers to read "Member states (43/192)". And add an asterisk after Sierra Leone in the OIC section. Bazonka (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I got em (I didn't scroll down far enough). Let me know if I'm still inaccurate/inept :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Not one reputable, non-biased source amongst that lot. I want to see something from Sierra Leone or an independent source. Just because Kosovo separatist government says something doesn't make it true. Look at how many times they've said that Macedonia will recognize and Macedonia never does. --Tocino 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But they have never falsly accused Macedonia or anyone of actually recognizing. Separatist or not, they are a government, not a commercial news agency, and as such they are less likely to spill unconfirmed unofficial stories that would cause them diplomatic embarrassement and which they'd later have to retract. They are as good as source as any country--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, dem separatists like to lie a lot. See, they got our 'friend' Tocino upset... --alchaemia (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we have been slightly hasty in adding SL to the list - but I think that a Kosovo Foreign Ministry statement has a lot more weight behind it than a news site report. I think we're OK. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovo and Metohija Foreign Ministry is based in Belgrade and they have made no statements about Sierra Leone. Meanwhile the separatist government is an illegitimate body and desperate for recognition so they will say anything. --Tocino 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Since when does the Kosovo and Metohija Foreign Ministry ever report on countries that recognize Kosovo independence? The legitimacy or illegitimacy of Kosovo's government is a political pov and is entirely irrelevant, as is the notion that just because they are separatists they will "say anything. The same argumnent can be made of Serbia. But the reality is, both Serbia and Kosovo are equally likely to report official facts as facts and not lie about something confirmable like political recognition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes Tocino, you're quite right. They'll probably claim that the moon has recognised Kosovo next. One word for you: obstreperous. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The separatist government has a terrible track record. Besides claiming that Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize every other week, right around the time of the declaration separatist leaders promised that Kosovo and Metohija would be recognized as an independent state by over 100 countries within months. Fast forward a half a year and consider with the pace they're on right now, they'll be lucky to get to 60 when all is said and done. Obstreperous best describes Kosovo Albanian supporters as they are the ones who are in the vocal minority. The vast majority of nations support Serbian sovereignty and are opposed to separatism. --Tocino 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Your points have nothing to do with their reputability in reporting official government facts, only that they are overly enthusiastic about their future. ALL governments spew propaganda, but that is not the same as releasing a statement about an official government act. There is no reason to believe they would lie about this, and every rson to believe they wouldn't lie about it, as it would seriously hurt their political interests.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To call the Kosovo separatist government an "official government" is POV considering that 150 out of 192 UN member states don't recognize it as an "official government". The Kosovo separatist government has no authority to report about recognition of a Serbian province. --Tocino 13, June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't call them an "official government," read more carefully you are taking the phrase out of context. I was talking about their reporting on the official acts of other governments, i.e., Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone recognizing Kosovo is an official government act by Sierra Leone. Both "official" and "government" are adjectives describing the noun "act," in reference to the act of recognition. And it is not POV to differentiate between something that Kosovo does officially, and something it does unofficially, the issue is not whether they are legally right, that is irrelevant, the issue is their stated aim and intention, which is Kosovo's official position regardless of who is sovereign over Kosovo, and their reliability as a source given that intention. As I said, their political aims are not compatible with lying about who recognized them, that would cause scandal and embarassement--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be colored in on the map.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • @ Tocino Yes you are correct that their predictions have been wrong, but they have never been wrong at reporting things. Also i have done the map. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the edit, the source seems good. There is a big difference between a news agency that retracted its story, and the Kosovo Foreign Ministry.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • @ Tocino Your criticizing the Rep of Kosovo's predictions. So what if they have been wrong. I agree with you that they will only get around 60 by the end of the year. But the President of Kosovo's site is only producing what has happened, not predictions. So stop going in to "forum mode", if you wish to criticize their predictions, go to a blog, not this article talk page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am criticizing this edit request because it relies on biased sources with a track record of bad predictions. --Tocino 18;36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
A track record of bad predictions? And this matters because??? George Bush has a track record of bad predictions on Iraq, but if he releases a statement saying he authorized 1000 more troops, I have no reason to think he is lying. A prediction and an official report are two completely and utterly unrelated things, apples and oranges. The source is good because it is official. It is not in Kosovo's political interests to go around claiming recognition from countries that don't, since any country could easily respond that they are lying.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is the President of Kosovo's site a bad source? Is it because he said something and it hasn't happened. I think everyone has said something and its not happened. You can't predict the future. There is nothing wrong with the President of Kosovo's site as a source. Also he hasn't predicted that SL will recognise, hes said that they have recognised. So he isn't predicting anything at the moment. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino will oppose anything just for the sake of it, I think the majority of the contributors for this article have recognized this reality by now. If we had gone by Tocino's opposals, no country would be showing up in the recognizing table right now. Exo (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all (with the notable exception of one) agreed that the Kosovo Foreign Ministry statement is reliable and worthy of a mention. However, the article doesn't link to it - only to a Kosova Press article. Can we also put in a reference to the FM statement? Hapsala's link to it (at the top of this section) goes to Kosovothanksyou. Is it available elsewhere? Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to Tocino Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You should not disrupt this discussion just to assert your point that the government of the Republic of Kosovo lacks legitimacy and that the government of the province of Kosovo and Metohija "is based in Belgrade". It is perfectly valid and logical that the government of the Republic of Kosovo makes an official statement announcing its recognition by a nation. After all, it was that government that requested recognition through letters sent to the governments of all nations. If those nations accept to grant recognition, they reply to the government that requested it. Hence the validity of the source. Húsönd 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but despite the fact that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority, these people have been spreading lies before, including claiming that their neighbors Montenegro and Macedonia will recognize when in reality they won't recognize and also saying that 100 countries will recognize when in reality they haven't come anywhere close to that number. --Tocino 20:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, again, please read WP:SOAP (for your "but despite the fact that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority" indicates you haven't). Claiming that Montenegro and Macedonia will recognize Kosovo cannot be considered a "lie", rather speculation, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia due to WP:CRYSTAL. Much unlike an official statement claiming that something has already occurred and therefore no longer within the scope of wishful speculation. Yet again, please read WP:SOAP. Húsönd 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just calling a spade a spade. Keep in mind, calling Kosovo and Metohija the "Republic of Kosovo" may be offensive to those of us who respect international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. This is not the main issue though. We should've waited for a better, unbiased source. --Tocino 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for interjecting, but I think it is worth ponting out, the question of nomenclature in this case is encyclopedic, and is not about political preference. The names "Republic of Kosovo" and "Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija" denote two different, de facto political entities. The entity calling itself "Republic of Kosovo," not the government of the Serbian province, asked for and received recognition from certain foreign governments. It is neither POV nor offensive to state the fact of which entity did what, and to call it by its name. That is separate from the question of legitimacy, which is left to the reader's opinion. I disagree with the legality of the Southern Secession during the US Civil War, but I can't demand that the article remove every reference to the Confederate States of America as if it didn't exist--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't start with the "offensive". If you're going to be offended with notions that are antagonistic to yours, then you must carefully ponder your participation in controversial topics on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I must note that international law is subject to each one's interpretation. What you or a group of people or a state understand as respect for international law may not be quite such for others. Húsönd 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
So then why did you accuse me of WP:SOAP when I said "the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has no authority" ? Also this international law is pretty well defined and at the time it was accepted by all sides: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. --Tocino 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
«Sigh». One thing is to have different interpretations of international law (and it's good that you have yours), but another thing is to come here and promote them as if this were a forum. It is not. Myself, I could provide multiple interpretations for the ad-nauseamly discussed Resolution 1244, but that is simply not for here. Húsönd 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosova2008 (talk)

Apparently Tocino cares about international law. But not Wikipedia rules Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Which rules? --Tocino 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NPA, WP:DBN, ect. Ok i suppose they are more like guidelines rather than rules, but you get what im saying ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well what I am arguing is that by putting up Sierra Leone so fast, without an independent or Sierra Leonean-based source, we have violated :WP:POV and WP:NPOV rules. :) --Tocino 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, we haven't. Could you please clarify what exactly in WP:POV and WP:NPOV we could have violated by doing so? Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Using the Kosovo Albanian separatist government's website as a source is a terrible violation of WP:POV and WP:NPOV especially considering their terrible reputation of making things up (that Macedonia and Montenegro will recognize for example). --Tocino 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. Which sentence of WP:POV or WP:NPOV does it contradict? Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Please read: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly the Kosovo Albanian separatist government is biased and is not reliable and us using them as a lone source is a violation of NPOV. --Tocino 23:06,13 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can find another source, feel free to propose it. So far this has been the only significant view that has been published by reliable sources. Every source is biased (or at least we can never make sure that a source is not biased), that's why the NPOV policy exists. Re-read it carefully. As to its reliability, feel free to discuss it at WP:RSN, and we will see. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
To suggest that the President of Kosovo site is not NPOV, is POV itself. Stalemate! Govt sites are reliable sources. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
But the President of Kosovo is Boris Tadić and he has made no statements about Sierra Leone recently! If you are talking about one of the leaders of the Kosovo Albanian separatist government then I would say that these people have made too many factually incorrect statements in the past so they should not be trusted anymore. --Tocino 22:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Boris Tadic has been supported by few percent of Kosovo's population at best, so then he is an usurper. This is not a forum and not a soapbox, however, so please stop. Colchicum (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and Kosovo independence is supported by 20% of the Serbian population (including Kosovo and Metohija) at best, so the separatists don't have very much support do they? ---Tocino 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What matters is the opinion of those living individuals who live or lived in Kosovo (including refugees), this is their home after all. And their opinion is pretty clear. The opinion of the Serbian (or Albanian) population outside Kosovo matters as much as mine or yours. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough thats your POV. But do not inflict your POV into the article. Please will you give an example of factual incorrect statement made by the most gracious Boris Tadić? ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol? Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No seriously, please give an example of a factual incorrect statement made by the Republic of Kosovo .Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Give me a day or so. I am using someone else's computer right now and I am about to go eat. --Tocino 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I will give you time to think up some rubbish ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already found one factually incorrect statement by Hashim Thaci aka The Snake: [11] --Tocino 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Thats quite clearly a prediction. Please explain how that is a fact? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Direct quote from The Snake: "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration, and now we must work on the international recognition for the state of Kosovo. We will have a powerful, massive, and consolidated recognition." That sounds an awful lot like a statement of fact to me. --Tocino 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes i read that. Just because he said that does not make that fact, its a prediction because it has not happened yet. I think its best to end this discussion because you obviously do not understand what the basic word "fact" means. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are having a difficult time comprehending The Snake's words. He says, with emphasis, "I can only reconfirm," as if he is highly confident that the following: ",we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration" is true. --Tocino 23:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tocino, according to your logic of thinking -- which I find flawed, may I add -- the Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic has also made "factually incorrect statements" as found in this The Times of London piece: "Vuk Jeremic, the Serbian Foreign Minister, has predicted that international recognitions for Kosovo will peak at 40..." [12] (also found here and here too). This is a statement/prediction that time has shown to be incorrect whether you include Sierra Leone's recognition or not. Prime Minister Hashim Thaci on the other hand has predicted that Kosovo will be recognised by about 100 countries and, contrary to Jeremic, time might, just might, prove that he was right. He never gave a firm date although he used the term immediate, however unlike Jeremic Prime Minister Hashim Thaci might be proved correct if Kosovo is recognised by about 100 countries, albeit with the too optimistic time-scale. In other words, you're not fooling anyone -- if Prime Minister Hashim Thaci has said "Republic of Kosovo has been recognised by 100 countries" you might have had a point, but he hasn't said that and you don't have a valid point. Kind regards, Kosovar (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, this is a second warning

Please refrain from using words such as "separatists" and calling the PM of Kosova a "snake". Kosova2008 (talk)

Please refrain from calling the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija as "Kosova" or "Republic of Kosovo". Also, PM of Kosovo separatist government got his nickname from his fellow KLA terrorists. --Tocino 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
An example of a factual incorrect statement would be if he said "There are 191 members in the UN". That would be factually incorrect. You can't be factual about something thats not happened. Also WP:SOAP Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocino, here are three points I would like to make here:

1) Whether Sierra Leone has recognized Kosovo or not doesn't depend on the content of the Wikipedia article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and on your efforts here. If there is any relation, it is other way round.

2) With over 90% of Kosovo's population opposing the alleged Serbian sovereignty over it, the only way to make Kosovo de facto part of Serbia is genocide. I sincerely hope you wouldn't support this.

3) This is not a forum.

Bye. Colchicum (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum, right? Well then what does you accusing me of supporting genocide have anything to do with improving this article? See you later. --Tocino 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

@ admins: Until what point do you keep tolerating something whose only contribution to this article is POV views and insults? Someone who has turned this discussion page into his personal propaganda soapbox? Of course I mean Tocino. Please, do something. --82.114.65.222 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple look at his talk page shows Tocino has been warned five times so far in connection with the three-revert rule, incivility, inappropriate edit summaries and personal attacks, so it is not true that editors/admins haven't done anything in response. If you think another warning is appropriate, you can add the appropriate user warning template yourself to his talk page; if you think this is insufficient - either now or any time in the future - you can make a report at WP:WQA, WP:RFC/USER or WP:ANI AndrewRT(Talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
In the "This is not a forum" box above, it says that "any such messages will be deleted". I've never known that to happen. Bazonka (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia on map

Should we add maybe in light green those countries which have confirmed that they will recognize Kosovo? kwami (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has, apparently, confirmed that through its ambassador to Austria, but I don't think we need to change it until it happens. --alchaemia (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Until what happens? Until SA confirms that it will recognize? We state that it already has. kwami (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

edit request update

{{editprotect}}

please do the following.

  • Update the UN to 43 states.
  • Change Sierra Leone to 13 June 2008, instead of 31 May 2008

Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to deal with this as already mentioned above. (Think we added similar requests at the same time.) Bazonka (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sierra Leone is still missing an asterisk next to it's name in the OIC member list... Ajbenj (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not any more. Bazonka (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request +add reaction to Bangladesh

{{editprotect}}

The folowing notable reaction was reported from a group in Bangladesh, not its government, but urging its government to recognize Kosovo. It should be added to the international reaction from Bangladesh: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/06/14/news0364.htm

Please replace:

|- |  Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[20] || |-

with the following addtion:

|- |  Bangladesh || On 18 February 2008, when asked about possible recognition of independent Kosovo, a spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: "The interests of the people of Kosovo have always been close to Bangladeshi hearts, and we are proud to have contributed to the stability of that region through our peace-keepers. We are following the issue very closely with like-minded countries, and also the relevant on-going Security Council deliberations at the UN. Decisions on matters such as this are always taken on the basis of perceived national self interest, the moral questions involved, and the realities on the ground, as will be the case in this respect".[21] On 14 June 2008 a Bangladeshi independent newspaper The New Nation reported that Salim Prodhan, chairman of the Japan-Bangladesh Group, urged the Bangladeshi governement to recognise Kosovo's independence for economic reasons while likening the liberation of Kosovo to Bangladesh's own liberation from Pakistan in 1971.[22]|| |-

We source nongovernmental reaction in the case of Cuba by an influential person on the basis that he is an advisor to the government speaking in the media. This sort of is in the same category, as the group is an international relations group, advising its government, also via the media. --Mareklug talk 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight disagree. I'm not really sure that you can compare a government advisor (Fidel Castro) with the chairman of a private company (see http://jbgroupbd.org/index.htm). I don't think that this is worth mentioning, although I wouldn't object too strongly if it was. (PS I have fixed some typos in the suggested new text above.) Bazonka (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the two are not comparable. Castro's inclusion is valid as an official government advisor, not to mention brother to the president, and former ruler of 50 years, who likely is still paramount leader behind the scenes, or at the very least possesses the clout to dictate Cuban foreign policy--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree - There is an established precedent for ignoring comments by private groups or persons. We have previously rejected statements by people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and a respected Japanese-based think tank. This is no different--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. Salim Prodhan is not a Bangladeshi government official. --Tocino 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree. Addition makes the statement much clearer. --Digitalpaper (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree Such an influential person obviously merits a mention. --alchaemia (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets? 12 minutes between each similar edits. --Tocino 23:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my opinion on the matter does not mean I'm a sockpuppet, Tocino. --alchaemia (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Not done There is significant division, and therefore no consensus. I suggest filing a request for comment and receive outside opinions. That will give clearer consensus either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Constitution

Today, on the 15th, the Constitution has entered into force[13]. I think it's important to mention that in the article. --alchaemia (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a constitution of Kosovo is classed as an "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to include that in the international reaction, but in the general article. We could also mention the reaction of key international players on the Constitution's entrance into force. --alchaemia (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep to the article's topic. In this article, the content is to be only the international reaction to the declaration. Of course, any reaction to the constitution becoming law should be described elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a delicate question. I agree with Mareklug because inserting info on the constitution, and reactions to it, in the artcle intro, can easily derail the topic; however, if reactions to the constitution carry significant reference to the legality of Kosovo's independence, aside from simply calling the constitution itself illegal, then such statements should be included in that country's reaction section, otherwise, the Kosovo Constitution can be adressed in its own article and in the Kosovo article.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pristina

Now it's finally and officially safe to use Pristina I guess.--Avala (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

good good. Hopefully people will respect neutrality of the spelling from now on ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Avala you are getting carried away. Wikipedia is not your playground to enforce rules set out from the Constitution of the Republic of Kosova. It is not official to use pristina over Prishtina, sir. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite. This is not the playground for everyone to pursue their personal spelling. There is one official spelling in English and it's Pristina. Now maybe you spell it Prischteena but honestly we don't care.--Avala (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree - with Avala. Nothing is more official than a Constitution--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but only after we define Kosovo as an independent and sovereign parliamentary republic. That too, is in the Constitution as well. --alchaemia (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Agree with Avala Yes I support Kosovo , but I support my own language too, which is English. I don't want to see Albanian/ Serbian spellings on an English site. If I see an Albanian/ Serbian spelling, I will see it as an insult to the English language, which is a part of my culture. Some may call that racist. Use English on English Wikipedia. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Your" language is only as good as the words that preceded it; it doesn't create new words, it merely adopts and adapts them. Even though you say you don't want to use Albanian/Serbian names, you are, in fact, advocating using a Serbian name (Pristina is Priština without the "š"). So, yeah, good going there. --alchaemia (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And why don't we use "š", because it does not feature in the English language. Well the English language decided to adopt "Pristina". So deal with it instead of inflicting Albanian Propaganda into this article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Crikey Ijanderson, that's a bit strong. I'm English too, and so I'd obviously prefer to use English spellings, but if a foreigner uses a foreign spelling then is it really an insult? It may be POV or it may be a simple mistake, but I'm sure they're not out to insult the integrity of our language.
I have an old (British) atlas from the 60s where it's spelt Prǐstina. Is that an insult? No, just a mistake.
And Alchaemia has a valid point - English is a bastard language that draws influences from everywhere. I'm pretty sure our spelling of "Pristina" comes directly from the Serbian "Priština" - we just don't understand diacritics so we tend to ignore them, and hence we pronounce it with a flat S sound. If we'd taken the Albanian "Prishtina" we'd understand the spelling and pronunciation and so continue to call it "Prishtina". But that's irrelevant - there's all sorts of historical things hidden in the etymologies of English words that don't hold true nowadays. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough i was a bit extreme, but ive had this discussion many of times. Then we get all these people saying, well Kosovo is Albanian, should we should spell things in Albanian. I admit there is no de jure English spelling for the city. However over time it has become de facto "Pristina" in english. It is also the most neutral as it isn't the same as the Albanian or Serbian version. Even the Kosovo Govt and their constitution spell it "Pristina". Also by this, we should spell it as "Pristina". Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually you are wrong when you say that there is no de jure English spelling as now there is.--Avala (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala, yeah no it isn't, because the Albanian (and Serbian) version takes precedence over the English version of the Constitution. Only the Albanian and Serbian versions are official, seeing as they are the only two official languages of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchaemia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
With your logic we could use Приштина in this article as that's the correct version (Serbian)? I don't think so. This is English language Wikipedia and it deals with English language only.--Avala (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't really care what the official languages of Kosovo are in this discussion. We are on about the English language. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

fact Audio Help /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

As long as you are presenting facts you have to present things that exist, i.e. Albanian/Serbian. 72.161.213.179 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And English doesn't exist? Please spam somewhere else.--Avala (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey,Ijanderson977, maybe you should tone down your arrogance a bit. I was talking about the officialism of those names; English, simply, is not an official language in Kosova/o, hence it is not possible to classify Pristina as official. Common usage maybe, but not official. Try to take a walk and calm down next time you go on a rant. --alchaemia (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that English was the official language of Kosovo. So what are you on about? Pristina is what people in the English speaking world call the city. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time to stop this conversation. Bazonka (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed [14] Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How much can be written on this!

Seriously, 35 Talk pages in archives, once this becomes too long, 36, all on the International Reaction to Kosovo becoming independent. It can't be that amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.98.196 (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it is very controversial. And there are awkward POV contributors out there, so lots of talk needed to get the right balance - but I agree, sometimes too much. Bazonka (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look at some of the archive pages, there sometimes only 6 things in them. So its not really 35 archives pages. Its more like 15, but just split into 35. Also as Bazonka said, it is very controversial article and there updates made every day and because the page is locked, we have to discuss things before an update can be made. I'll sort out the archives better. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVES 25 TO 35 ARE EMPTY I merged some of the archives together, because there was hardly anything in some of them. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I hope you appreciate the irony: complaining about how long the archives are, and at the same time coming in here to post a personal reflection not pertaining to the article. =) There are plenty of articles with long histories, that is not unusual.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vatican has no intention to recognize Kosovo in the nearest future

Cardinal Walter Casper of Vatican during the visit to Moscow stated that Vatican hasn't recognized Kosovo and has no intention to do so. Here is the original document from Russian agency InterFax Ватикан не намерен признавать независимость Косово and a bit poor translation from Macedonian Agency MINA Vatican will not recognize Kosovo. Now let's decide how to put this into the article. --Avala (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Walter Casper said this. He is the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unit. So what diplomatic responsibilities does he have? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Representative of Vatican. They have a bit different diplomatic representatives than secular states.--Avala (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The quotes we have are:

  1. "Until this moment, the Wholly Synod has not recognized Kosovo as an independent country, and has no intention to do so"
  2. "Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church are worried with Kosovo" and admit that Kosovo is "craddle of the Serbian Orthodox Church".
  3. "each national minority as a right on social, religios and cultural existence, including the Kosovo Albanians as well as the Serbian minorities that live today on Kosovo's territory".

How to right it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian translation is bad. First of all it's Holy Synod not Wholly Synod and then it's an Orthodox name, not Catholic.--Avala (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposal (with correcting names Holy Synod to Holy See and Papal Council for Christian Reunification to Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Casper to Kasper):

In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has stated that "the Holy See has not recognized Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so".[23]

I would keep out his comments on support to ROC as it's not directly related to this article which is reaction to the declaration of independence.

I think this is a fine proposal. Any comments?

--Avala (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight disagree, as it has not been clarified what "the nearest future" means. I am Russian, and I can translate this piece literally.
"На данный момент Святой Престол не признал Косово как независимое государство и в ближайшее время делать этого не планирует", - заявил Каспер в интервью, опубликованном в журнале "Итоги".
"For the time being, the Holy See hasn't recognized Kosovo as an independent state and is not planning to do so in the nearest future", - claimed Kasper in an interview published in the Itogi magazine.
Curiously enough, the Macedonian news agency has omitted this. Colchicum (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the original Itogi article of June 16: [15] Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just Use the English source though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then lets get the correct wording done first. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll translate Kasper's original answer soon, and then let's decide. But as of now Avala's wording seems tendentious. Here is the piece in Russian:
- В продолжение темы: считаете ли вы ту модель, согласно которой в Европе была решена проблема Косово, удачной? Признал ли Святой престол новое государство - Республику Косово?
- Мы понимаем ту озабоченность, которую выражала Россия и Русская православная церковь по поводу косовской проблемы. Мы также понимаем, что Косово является колыбелью Сербской православной церкви. Наша позиция такова, что любые национальные меньшинства имеют право на социальную, религиозную и культурную самобытность, в том числе и косовские албанцы, и сербское меньшинство, проживающее сегодня на территории Косово. Последнее серьезно ограничено в реализации этих прав. А если говорить об осквернении христианских святынь и памятников в Косово, то это свидетельствует о большой нетерпимости в отношениях между двумя религиозными общинами. На данный момент Святой престол не признал Косово как независимое государство и в ближайшее время делать этого не планирует. Colchicum (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's tendentious. He scours the net for news against recognition, and when that news partially materializes, he makes it appear as if the Vatican has said they will 'never' recognize, whereas they simply said 'in the nearest future.' --alchaemia (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I used Macedonian source for the proposed text as you and anyone can see but instead of noticing that you decide to slander me which is out of line.--Avala (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Proceeding with the topic, do you consider the framework of solving the Kosovo problem adopted in Europe fortunate? Has the Holy See recognized the new state, the Republic of Kosovo?
- We understand the concern expressed by Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church about the Kosovo problem. We also understand that Kosovo is the cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Our position is that all ethnic minorities are entitled to have their social, religious and cultural distinctiveness, including both the Kosovo Albanians and the Serbian minority living in the territory of Kosovo today. The latter is seriously restricted from exercising their rights. As to the desecration of Christian sanctuaries and monuments in Kosovo, this is evidence of the strong intolerance between the two religious communities. For the time being, the Holy See hasn't recognized Kosovo as an independent state and is not planning to do so in the nearest future.
Dybsky, Kirill. We should meet more often. Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008.
That's all. Let's decide. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[24]

Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - nice and simple. But I would change "has stated that" to just "stated that". Also, shouldn't it be Cardinal Walter Kasper, not Walter Cardinal Kasper? Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have also included an unofficial translation in the reference. Have a look. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request Vatican

{{editprotect}} Please change the Vatican from this

|  Vatican City[25] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [26][27] |-

to this

|  Vatican City[28] (Holy See) || Pope Benedict XVI said the Vatican called for "prudence and moderation" in Kosovo and Serbia. The Holy See urged politicians in the region to show "a decisive and concrete commitment to ward off extremist reactions and violence", Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi announced. "The Holy Father continues to look with affection at the people of Kosovo and Serbia, is close to them and is praying at this crucial moment of their history," the statement said. [26][27] In June 2008, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that "the Holy See has not recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and has no intention to do so in the nearest future."[29][30] |-

We have a consensus i believe. See above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a short notice in English in a Serbian media outlet: [16]. However, I suggest that we leave the Russian original as well, as it provides some useful context and is published offline (i.e. will never expire). Colchicum (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have included both references now Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AgreeIt's an accurate description of what he said. Slightly off-topic; 'does not plan to do so in the near future' has a double meaning: Vatican will not recognize now, but will do so eventually. At least that's my understanding of it. --alchaemia (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - --Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree.--Avala (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuba's opposition

After "In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana", there should be a comma. Just a little something, since the page is protected. Green caterpillar (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} You're quite right - if a little pedantic :)
Add a comma in the Cuba entry, after "Javier Solana". Uncontroversial edit. Bazonka (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done (this was much easier than the last one I botched along with :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing green regions on the map

As  France recognized Kosovo on 2/18, the French regions Martinique, Guadelope; and Réunion should accordingly be colored green. Hapsala (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The map does not show small French overseas territories. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that so...? What else than Réunion is represented by the unfilled dot to the east of Madagascar? Hapsala (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
So there is, i'll fix that Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's Mauritius - do not colour it in!!! Bazonka (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Too late. Colchicum (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovar

Why does the intro refer to "kosovan"..what is a kosovan? The English speaking world refers to a person from Kosova Kosovo or Republic of Kosova(o) as a Kosovar not "kosovan". Happy Melone has changed this and I want it changed to its' previous form...and my argument is what it has been argued here before that the world uses Kosovar precedentedly over kosovan.

The intro: "follows Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, enacted on February 17, 2008 by a vote of the Kosovan Parliament 109 in favour"

Ari d'Kosova (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the CIA World Factbook[31]: Kosovar is an Albanian term, Kosovac is a Serbian term, and Kosovan is a neutral (English language) term that's sometimes used (remember what language this article is written in!). Kosovar is therefore POV, but as it's commonly used in English I'd be happy for either Kosovar or Kosovan to be used. Bazonka (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Nationality noun: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovac (Serbian)
adjective: Kosovar (Albanian), Kosovski (Serbian) (note: Kosovan, a neutral term, is sometimes also used as a noun or adjective)"
The Factbook itself says "sometimes" used as a noun or adjective, but shows the main entry for nationality noun as "Kosovar." As you correctly point out, "Kosovar" has entered common usage, as seen in the press. It may be technically grammatically correct (for now) that the two terms are interchangeable as far as noun and adjective, but usage seems to be favoring two distinct forms for two distinct purposes. Also, while I trust the Factbook's technical accuracy, it is not a grammar source. An Oxford quote would be ideal, but who knows how soon that will be available.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Kosovar" is a noun, while "Kosovan" is an adjective. In other words, a Kosovan person is known as a Kosovar. A Kosovar is a person from Kosovo, while all things generally related to Kosovo are "Kosovan."--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" in front of me where both Kosovar and Kosovan are listed. Here is my explanation in very simple terms:
(i) Kosovars are celebrating; just like Croats are celebrating of Serbs are celebrating, ie I would say "I am a Kosovar", a person from Croatia would say "I am a Croat" and a person from Serbia would say "I am a Serb."
(ii) Kosovan wine; just like Croatian wine or Serbian wine.
So, (i) Kosovar is equivalent of the noun Croat from Croatia or Serb from Serbia.
And, (ii) Kosovan is equivalent of the adjective Croatian from Croatia or Serbian from Serbia.
There is no standard in English language for the nouns and adjectives derived from countries or territories. Take a look at Netherlands, ie Dutch. Also, a very interesting case (similar to Kosovo) is Spain where we get Spanish and Spaniard -- equivalent to Kosovan and Kosovar, respectively. In the case of most countries though you have the same word describing both, for example Lithuanian from Lithuania. Hope this helps, Kosovar (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have that one as well. What I meant to say was, who knows how long it will be before we get a revised version that takes into account the explosion of English-language references to Kosovan matters, including possible changes in common usage, following Kosovo's independence. But thank you for reiterating what I said. I think my explanation was more "simple," but yours was more clear. ;)--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care, the only reason why we are using pristina over Prishtina is because it's COMMON in English. Since when are we using CIA and another encyclopedia to formulate our facts? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You "don't care?" that's a great rebuttal to people's detailed ad logical arguments, I guess it makes you right, you are very convincing.
  • In English, the most common term is, by definition, the correct term.
  • Pristina? I thought we were talking about "Kosovan" and "Kosovar."
  • The CIA Factbook we quoted says "Kosovar" is correct, it makes no sense for you to oppose it.
  • The last quote was the Oxford English Dictionary, the premier world authority on the English language--you have a problem with us using that formulate our facts on a language dispute? You don't make sense.
  • We don't care that you have a problem with "Kosovan," if you won't recognize the reasons and the context in which it is used, and if cannot come up with a resonable argument for why it is wrong or offensive, other than it just seems that way to you. Unlike the Pristina/Prishtina debate, this has nothing to do with things remotely resembling Serbian, so it should not a source of indignation, just a technical question.
  • It seems you are merely reacting and getting upset without really reading or understanding, or caring to understand, the arguments.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. Let's leave things as they are - in correct English.
Changing the sentence to "...by a vote of the Kosovar parliament..." would read as badly as "...by a vote of the Spaniard parliament..." - in other words: wrong! Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple of data points - the UK Guardian's style guide mandates the use of "Kosovan", not "Kosovar". [17]. Having said that, a book search reveals that "Kosovar" is somewhat more commonly used than "Kosovan". [18] [19] I'd say that it's probably too early to call either term definitively established - the spelling hasn't settled down yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Ari d'Kosova, well Prishtina best illustrates the illogical approach taken by some with regards to naming in English. Here is a short-ish explanation:
(i) The name of the city in Albanian is Prishtinë -- although the definite form is Prishtina.
(ii) The name of the city in Serbian is Приштина -- letter-by-letter (in latin -- and English language is latin-based) P R I SH T I N A. The key here is the letter Ш which is cyrillic for SH.
Hence, the Albanian definite form of the name and the Serbian name completely match. Why not use this name then?
The problem arises when the Serbian name of the city in converted to the latin version of Serbo-Croatian (formerly the official language of Yugoslavia) where SH is written as Š which is then simplified into latin as S. Thus, PRISHTINA becomes PRIŠTINA which, in turn, becomes PRISTINA.
In other words, PRISHTINA would be the name that matches the Serbian name, does not match the Albanian name but it does match the Albanian definite form name and would have been the intuitive and logical name to be used in the English language.
To best demonstrate that what I am talking makes sense and it is used elsewhere in English language and, in fact, even in Wikipedia look at the case of -- say -- Andrei Arshavin whose last name is Аршавин. Note the letter ш in his last name which is written as sh in English. There are countless other examples of Cyrillic Ш converted into Latin SH, countless.
For this reason, it is incorrect and false to state that Pristina is the English name of Prishtina when clearly Pristina is the transliteration of Serbo-Croat Priština, which in turn is a transliteration of Приштина, which is the Serbian name of the city. The connection is clear for everyone to see and the case unimpeachable that Pristina is the Serbian-borrowed name of the city which does not do justice neither to the Serbian name nor to the Albanian name. Many thanks, Kosovar (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct to say that the English name of the city should be "Prishtina". But should be doesn't mean is. In English it's called "Pristina". We're wrong to call it that; but that's what we call it, and we're unlikely to change. Learn to live with it. Bazonka (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Bazonka, I am not saying that Prishtina in English is called Prishtina, but I pointed out an inconsistency. So, if the common use of Pristina makes it "the English name" of the city then why not apply the same standard to the term Kosovar which is by far more widely used than Kosovan. Yours, Kosovar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the English language is full of inconsistencies. We have over 10 pronunciations for the letters ough for example. Just because things aren't consistent doesn't make them wrong. Bazonka (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
With due respect, this has nothing to do with the English language as such. Even less so with the pronunciations. For God's sake, pronunciations! The point in question is what is the Latin alphabets equivalent for Cyrillic letter Ш? If for the Russian city Asha (Cyrillic: Aшa) and for the Bulgarian city Shumen (Cyrillic: Шумен) the Cyrillic letter ш is written as sh in Latin alphabet then why for Prishtina it is written as s without the h? It just makes no sense. Funnily enough, you mentioned the pronunciations and Prishtina both in Albanian and Serbian is pronounced the same using sh, which is both languages is different to s alone. It wasn't some linguist in a library who decided "oh well, in case of Prishtina we shall use s for ш" nor has it to do with the English language because the same inconsistency is found in Italian language, for example. Now, you're not going to tell me that the Italian language is also full of inconsistencies and I must live with it. I am living with it. Someone raised this issue and I responded with my opinion. Anyhow, the so-called "English names" for places do change from time to time, such as Moldova and Moldavia where the i was dropped. In the future, the h could be added to Pristina, but I am not loosing any sleep about it. Yours, Kosovar (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, I agree that, in English, "Prishtina" should be the name of the city, but it isn't. And you're right, it may change in the future, but until that happens we use the illogical "Pristina". End. Bazonka (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bazonka and SuperSexy I do not have to give rebuttal because I am the one who is correct and it is the position of both users to give better arguments to keep this "kosovan". I do remember correctly that until recently the intro read correctly until a certain admin decided to take actions into his own hands and change Kosovar --> Kosovan and Declaration of Independence ---> Unilateral declaration of independence. I have noticed that WP does not recognize guidlines or rules, instead, it recognizes precendents ---- it recognizes "what is common in the english language because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia." In English the common term is Kosovar; the end, the same argument is being used to keep PRISTINA over PRISHTINA. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Nobody, on any side of any argument, is ever "right" simply because they say they are right. People have to back up their claims, especially if they want others to agree on a course of action. Neither you or anyone in the source of all truth.
  • You are the one demanding an edit, you are the one who has to demonstrate why it is justified.
  • As a simple matter of civilized discussion, if other people have given clear, logical arguments for their views, and presented them in a polite, respectful manner, then it is on you to show why they are wrong and you are right, otherwise, there is no point in even talking.
  • You claim that wikipedia follows precedent over guidelines or rules. Prove it. What official guideline or rule of the English language states that "Kosovan" is not a real word and that only "Kosovar" should be used? Where may I find these rules and who is authorized to make them?
  • In case you are not aware, not all languages are governed by official, government-based, nationalist bodies that dictate correct vocabulary and grammar, like the French and Spanish Academies of language. English is a democratic language where usage dictates the correct form. The publishers of dictionaries have boards of scholarly advisors made up of academics from different fields and walks of life, ranging from writers to professors to scientists to media journalists, in other words, people who read a lot. They make recommendations based on what they consider to be common public usage, based on their readings. By far the most prestegious of these publishers is Oxford University, source of the Oxford English Dictionary, which also respects and recognizes the different vocabularies and rules of usage in different Anglophone regions.
  • We already quoted the highest known authority of English, the Oxford English Dictionary, and it clearly states that both words are correct, and that they are two different words, one is a noun, and one is an adjective. Nobody here is climing that "Kosovar" is wrong, far from it, we have all supported it's use, as a nationality noun for a person from Kosovo. What part of this do you not understand or find erroneous and why?--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear. Bazonka (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mauritius has NOT recognised!!!

<rant> Some bright spark (I won't name who... read above if you want to find out) has coloured Mauritius in green on the map, thinking that it was the French territory of Réunion. It isn't. (Please can someone with map skills revert this change!) This is not the first time that we've falsely shown a country to have recognised. PLEASE can you take more care in future before making rash changes. </rant> Bazonka (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. A simple revert in the upload history does the trick. --Mareklug talk 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooops seems my geography around that area is not too good. Hapsala confused me. I even said small over sea territories are not shown on the map, but Hapsala confused me (see above). Sorry about that. My mistake ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. There are no more uncoloured overseas territories on the map. Bazonka (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Geez, chill out. --alchaemia (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some statistics

Wow, this is a popular page! [20] Colchicum (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not extremely.--Avala (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As popular as e.g. Belgrade. Colchicum (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Restore Iraq

It appears in previous edits bui it has been deleted. Robin Hood 1212 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What is their position? Kosova2008 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This is because the reference had nothing to do with the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. If you find a relevant source, we will update the article with Iraq. Ijanderson977 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the statement of Iraqi minister was about the independence declaration (you can react on political events in advance, only natural disasters can have postreaction. He made a statement a few days before the declaration). But now someone needs to find the statement which is lost.--Avala (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Link is here [32] (NB it is a bit of a funny website - you may have to click the link, choose English, then return to this page and try again). The Iraqi statement is not, as Avala says, "about the independence declaration" in particular - it was "Iraq's stance on the issue of Kosovo". Nowhere in the article is the independence declaration (or intention to declare) mentioned. And how can you react to something that hasn't happened yet??? The word you are looking for is "preparation". Bazonka (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Because it's a known fact. Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead so yes anyone could react in advance because the declaration wasn't in question.--Avala (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
They didn't announce anything; even the official request for the special parliamentary meeting was submitted on the 17th - and hour later it was held and the majority decided to put t up for a vote. All of it went on from around 12:00h to 13:50h. Everyone *knew*, but no official confirmation was given until that very day. So, no, they did not announce it days ahead. --alchaemia (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Celebration schedule including fireworks was revealed days ahead so please don't spread misinformation, it doesn't help anyone.--Avala (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if the Iraqis knew the declaration was coming, they still didn't respond to it - they pre-empted it. You could say they responded to the expectation, but that's not the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said that it was a secret, I simply said that your statement "Kosovo leadership announced the whole plan including the time of fireworks days ahead" is false. If you think it's right, please prove it with a link or other source. Thanks. --alchaemia (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
[21] - ... "Predviđeno je da se građanima u 22.50 obrati predsednik i premijer Kosova, a svačanost povodom proglašenja nezavisnosti biće završena u 23 časa vatrometom u Prištini" which is "It has been planned that the President and the Prime Minister of Kosovo will address the people in 22:50, and a ceremony on the occasion of independence pronouncement will be completed in 23:00 with fireworks in Pristina." False, eh? --Avala (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Previdjeno does not mean "it has been planned." Stop making stuff up. --alchaemia (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does mean that. Don't be malicios.--Avala (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So Avala, even the Serbs say KOSOVA not kosovo...you said "i premijer Kosova". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo, Kosova, Kosovu, Kosovo, Kosovo, Kosovom, Kosovu. It's called grammar.--Avala (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuba edit request -- remove OR, return removed content (now sourced) and replace broken sources

Please see the section Cuba link maintenance above for discussion. The current write-up contains original research. The article, just before it was locked, was impoverished by removing a statement in the Cuba section, stating that the MFA has not reacted. While there is still no evidence as of 17 June 2008 that Cuba has reacted officially, there is evidence to the contrary from the St. Kitts-Nevis MFA, a neighboring island: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."[33] So, we only have a reaction from a prominent Cuban, but none from Cuba the state. This reaction dates from 29 February 2008, which is being explicitly added to the writeup. Also, a broken link is being replaced with a new source, in Catalan (old, no longer available, was in Spanish). An English-language source by a neighboring Ministry of Foreign Affairs is sourced. --Mareklug talk 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Please replace:

|- |  Cuba[10] || In a newspaper article, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[10] Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba.[34] || |-

with the following:

|- |  Cuba|| In a news article on the 29 February 2008, ex-President Fidel Castro attacked Javier Solana, accusing him of being the ideological father of Kosovo's independence. To Fidel Castro, Javier Solana is the synthesis of pure unreasonableness and injustice, as Kosovo's independence might create a precedent for Catalonia's independence, or that of the Basque Country.[10] The neighboring MFA of St. Kitts-Nevis stated on 27 March 2008: "No Caribbean State has made any formal statement either in support of or against Kosovo’s declaration of independence."[33] || |-

--Mareklug talk 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree It was an unethically performed edit and should be strongly condemned. I agree with the new proposal. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree because expansion of India entry was vetoed by Mareklug even though we had a photo of the meeting where the joint declaration on behalf of Russia, China and India was read by Russian Foreign Minister (could have been any of the three though). So if that wasn't good enough than this is certainly not good enough. St. Kitts & Nevis statement goes to St. Kitts & Nevis as he spoke on his behalf, not after a meeting with Cuban officials. And I will repeat once more - Fidel Castro is not retired, he is an elected Cuban official (he was retired for week or so between these two posts of President and Foreign Policy Advisor to whom Raul Castro vowed to listen). --Avala (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect This objection does not address: a) removal of OR, b) fixing broken link, c) adding date in February when Castro made his statement (and none since) and most of all, d) opposes because some other edit was opposed -- it's an ad hominen response based on who proposed the edit, and does not address the issues raised or fixes needed. Fidel Castro's retirement never came up -- it's a straw man issue. The editprotect removes OR, adds a contextual date, and adds a dated, germane statemenent from a neighboring MFA (verifiable evidence). It does nothing else. --Mareklug talk 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: "it does nothing else" - I am confused as to why the line "Fidel Castro spoke on Cuba's behalf as a newly elected advisor on foreign policy to the new President Raúl Castro, a position unanimously approved by the National Assembly of Cuba" was ommitted, and why some users insist on demoting Castro to mere "prominent Cuban," which seems a bit of a stretch.
Personally, I would say, if Fidel Castro does not dictate Cuban foreign policy, after ruling the island for 50 years, then my name is Tinkerbell. But that is obviously my POV and I wouldn't want to article propagandize it. Still, we must be realistic and not go to the opposite extreme of suppressing/minimizing relevant facts, and pretending that Castro is just another Cuban citizen with no authority. That is worse than POV, it is distortion. Fidel Castro is a Cuban government official--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The statement was omitted becasue it is OR. It was never sourced. See dicussion under Cuba link maintenance (still unarchived as of this writing). Wikipedia does not print true information, only verifiable information. This is clearly stated in the WP:VER -- please reread it. We don't know in what capacity Castro spoke -- we have no source for that. We have conjectures and official silence, and a report of a neighboring MFA that covers Cuba as well as the region. Note that the editprotect states what information it does state a) without OR, b) sourced, c) pertains to Cuba as it does to the region. --Mareklug talk 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect What has India got to do with Cuba? Avala seems to be disagreeing in bad faith and therefore in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ABF. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree: I like the new proposal. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to see reason win out. --Mareklug talk 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree. First of all let me say that I am very disappointed that an admin has decided to confirm this controversial edit request less than two hours after it was originally submitted and after only three responses had been posted. You know, some of us can't monitor this article 24/7, so leaving that little of time before confirming a controversial edit request is an abuse of power. As for my opposition, I do not believe that St. Kitts and Nevis speaks on behalf of Cuba unless Cuba gives them permission beforehand. Also, why was the sentence explaining Fidel Castro's role as a foreign policy advisor deleted? There was no reason to delete this crucial bit of information. Finally, the proposer failed to get a new functioning source for the old dead link of the first citation of the entry. -- Tocino 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It was deleted because it was never sourced. Not the fact that he is an adviser, but that his utternace is to be construed as official policy. Sourcing that he is an adviser or that he was unanimously elected, or that the parliament allowed Raul Castro to listen to Fidel Castro in general does not, unfortunately, source that this particularl late February op-ed piece is Cuba's policy. --Mareklug talk 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tocino. The edit was made far too soon without enough support, and the link between SKN's statement and Cuba's actual position is too tenuous and unclear. Bazonka (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
SNK statements is verifiable and pertains to Cuba as it does to the rest of the region. Its addition is the only source we have managed to produce all these months in the matter of official position by Cuba, so it is highly significant. It is lodged here with a date when it was made, that circumscribes its limitations. The alternative was OR by Wikipedians. --Mareklug talk 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
For all we know, SKN could have got their information about Cuba from Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
@Bazonka: do you any reason to doubt St. Kitts-Nevis MFA? We assume good faith and accurancy when sourcing Ministries of Foreign Affairs, so why this now? Supersexyspacemonkey examined the claims of OR, found that he agrees, and withdrew his objection. Would you please give us rational reasons for opposing? If you were not to oppose, we could resubmit the edit per admin's advice and fix the broken link which somehow did not get updated. --Mareklug talk 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
@Mareklug. Well, whilst the SKN MFA statement is probably correct, they do not speak on behalf of Cuba. How do they know Cuba's position? They did not explicitly mention Cuba. The scope of their statement is questionable - Costa Rica is a Carribean country that has recognised. When they talk about Carribean states, perhaps they are only really referring to the Commonwealth eastern Carribean island nations??? In short, I just don't think the link between their statement and Cuba's position is strong enough. Bazonka (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Further thoughts... It's quite possible that SKN were referring to just CARICOM nations in their vague statement - of which Cuba is not a member. And as for the question of how SKN knows Cuba's position - well, they do have diplomatic relations with Cuba, but not with all other Carribean nations. So this begs the question, how do they know e.g. Haiti's position??? They quite possibly get their information from exactly the same sources that we do. Therefore, their statement, whilst probably correct (with the exception of Costa Rica), does not seem to be a particularly watertight one. There are too many unknowns for my liking. Bazonka (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree (with edit) - Link issues do not address arbitrary removal of other content.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Content removed as OR. You're welcome to find a verifiable source that sources it, and then propose its re-addtion in conjunction with this new source. But Wikipedia does not publish OR, no matter how convincing it may be a conjecture. See the long running Cuba link maintenance section above (unarchived as of this writing). Repeated pleas for sourcing lead to lots of commentary and ...no source. --Mareklug talk 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Mareklug (and the one above). I am familiar with Wikipedia policy on OR, but I was confused as to what part of it was allegedly OR: that Castro made the comment, that Castro did so in an official capacity, or that Castro is even a government official. I assumed that the office attributed to him was factual, and so I interpreted the edit as having gone unnecessarily far. But, after reviewing, I found no sources confirming his government position, only an unsourced Wikipedia comment that he "remains First Secretary of the Communist Party." In light of this, I respectfully retract my opposition.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, there's nothing better than waking up to an accusation of "abuse of admin powers". Sheesh, no wonder this article is protected. I'm leaving the edit as is, but I will be the first to change it when you've all decided what it should say. Any other admin reading this, feel free to revert my latest edit on the article if you feel that it needs to be reverted, I do not have a problem with that. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Cuba link maintenance section (link here= [22] ) the edit request was done and then reverted after only ONE person objected to it, yet here we have FOUR people objecting to this request and it still stands. Now for the sake of fairness, would an admin please revert this edit request for the reasons stated above by four different editors. --Tocino 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus here to do anything. I have a feeling that no other admin will want to touch this, no admin has come to my talkpage either. Because there is absolutely no consensus to see this change made, I will revert it myself. Once consensus is reached here, feel free to either readd the editrequested template, or for a faster response, visit me on my talkpage to tell me that consensus has been reached. Changing it back to the pre-edit request version now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for changing it back. --Tocino 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Keeper, why do you make a change first, properly sourced and explained, and then revert it because Tocino complained? Don't follow that logic. --alchaemia (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just me. Four different users opposed this edit request. --Tocino 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To everyone, on both sides of this. I changed the edit because there was an apparent consensus. I changed it back because the apparent consensus was no longer apparent. The version it is in right now is incorrect. The version I changed it to was also contested. I am on no one's side here. I could care less about this article, I find it to be rather long, rather "wikinews-ish", cumbersome, poorly laid out, and in massive need of trimming/downsizing. This talkpage and its archives prove to me why this page is protected. Once you fine folks have come to a strong consensus for what it is supposed to say in the Cuba section, with qualified, reliable sources, no dead links, appropriate language, punctuation, and grammar, I'll change it again (or any other admin will). Until then, I am not on "Avala's side", or "Tocino's side", or Mareklug's" side. I don't have a side. Have a good day. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. I guess my vote will be decisive ChRis (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

China and India - edit request

{{editprotect}}

Replace this

|- |  People's Republic of China || The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favourable conditions for that".[35][36] || United Nations permanent member of the UNSC |-

with this

|- |  People's Republic of China || The Chinese Foreign Minister has made a statement stressing that the PRC "expresses grave concern" over Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The Minister's remarks go on to add that "The resolution of the Kosovo issue bears on peace and stability of the Balkan region, the fundamental norms governing international relations as well as the authority and role of the UN Security Council. China always believes that a plan acceptable to both Serbia and Kosovo through negotiations is the best way to resolve this issue", that "the unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo", stressing that "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region", and adding that "the international community should create favourable conditions for that".[37][38] On May 15, Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement regarding Kosovo during the conference in Ekaterinburg. It was read by the host minister, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[39] || United Nations permanent member of the UNSC |-

and this

|- |  India || "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[40]|| |-

with this

|- |  India || In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo, official spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said "We have taken note of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this Declaration. We are studying the evolving situation." "It has been India's consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states. We have believed that the Kosovo issue should have been resolved through peaceful means and through consultation and dialogue between the concerned parties."[41] On May 15, Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement regarding Kosovo during the conference in Ekaterinburg. It was read by the host minister, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory".[39] || |-


Thanks. --Avala (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)



Agree We all know it will be many and many of years before these two recognise. Please do the references properly before the edit is performed. I know this infomation/ content to be true. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment1 China and India should not be sourced to a Russian newspaper but to their governments. This is sloppy sourcing. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a joint declaration to the press so the press reports.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Then find a Chinese and Indian press source that reports it. Better yet, find Chinese and Indian government statements that mirror it. After all, it should be no problem, if the three countries acted jointly. Joint communiques are routinely reissued/replicated by each participating country. --Mareklug talk 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment2 Repeated source should be marked up using the ref name=value / tag. (with a slash). Not repeating the whole reference. This, too, is slopy sourcing. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment3 It is far from clear to me what India's and China's official positions are. Our writeups should make this crystal clear sourcing the official Indian and Chinese governments. Anything else looks like massaging reality with a POV in mind. --Mareklug talk 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at comment1. This is the joint declaration read by the host minister as explained in the edit request for the crystal clearness.--Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This joint declaration cannot be found in the Indian or Chinese official webspace. It is a figment of Russian media, it seems. This edit protect request seeks to alter the international reactions of China and India. Kindly provide these reactions from the source, not some Russian newspaper reprinting some phrases issued by a Russian diplomat. --Mareklug talk 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Let it be clear what moron Lavrov is. Colchicum (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated Comment: Can you guys put one edit request per section please? Also, I am sure Lavrov has said that Kosova is illegal, and today he said that he does not support the constitution, etc etc. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Following opposition addresses image on Wikimedia Commons not the edit request in question here:

The above warning in bold, "Following opposition...", was added by User:Avala anonymously, and is not true. My opposition, below, addresses a number of issues that are wrong with this proposed editprotect request, and the Commons use of this information to justify changes on Commons is only one of several. Please read and see. --Mareklug talk 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I just discovered that since making this editprotect request, User:Avala has altered the Commons map designation for China (having dones so earlier already for India) on the Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map. It is evident that his proposed editprotect forms the sole justification for China and India map changes with respect to recognizing or not officially Kosovo. I think that this is an unwise, slippery-slope way of changing crucial Wikipedia content, and I oppose this editprotect request on those grounds.

Nothing in the proposed editprotect explicitly informs the reader that these 2 countries have performed an official refusal to recognize Kosovo's independence. If that is the case, the editprotect should make this clear, instead of failing to do so.

The communique that purportedly speaks for all three countries and comes from the mouth of the Russian Foreign Minister and is quoted here from a Russian newspaper/website, seems to stop short of that outcome, as it calls on both sides, Belgrade and Prishtina, to carry on negotiations within the UN 1244 Resolution framework. The color on the Commons map legend for this reaction is orange, not red. I cannot support in good conscience an editprotect that introduces ambiguities in the English Wikipedia only to be used in turn to justify different Commons content changes, which happen to be displayed by several Wikipedia projects which use this map for illustration. In effect, the proposer is proposing one thing in the English Wikipedia, while effecting different changes on other projects -- all on the basis of the same information. This sort of editing is not justifiable.

As I said in my comments, India and China should be explicitly and clearly sourced to their respective governmental statements. If such statements are not available, the two states' positions remain de jure unsettled. Using Russian newspapers to imply that these states have officially rejected the Kosovo declaration of independence constitutes therefore original research. Extraordinary implications require making explicit statements, carefully, noncontestedly, officially sourced -- for any country, let alone China and India, which have highly evolved and continually updated official websites. Russia does not speak for anyone but Russia. Normally, joint communiques are made available from all offcial webpages of the governments that took part in such. Why aren't we seeing this replication in this case? Perhaps that is because a PR event is being sold as official policy. --Mareklug talk 06:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a reaction which this article is all about does not require passing a law in the parliament, it only takes to make a statement to the media. It is a common sense. Reaction =/= law. Reaction = statement. --Avala (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect This objection does not address: edit request itself b) fixing broken link, removing of dated content or inclusion of updates it only opposes on grounds of Wikimedia map which is not used in this article -- it's a straw man issue. --Avala (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This objection does far more than you say it does. In the main, it objects to your editprotect request as faulty and improperly sourced. Please don't interpret for the administrator what he or she can plainly read for themselves, especially by falsifying what is in plain view. --Mareklug talk 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Oppose Such language is simply not used by either India or China ("of that Serbian province...") and it was only read by Lavrov, the FM of Russia and not the FMs of India or China. --alchaemia (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to administrator carrying out the editprotect: This opposition goes directly against what we can see in the source (including photo). It was a joint statement, end of story. I can contest an edit saying Mars does not exist, but it would mean nothing as there are sources which confirm the existence of Mars.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ava, what hes saying is that the People representing those countries didn't say that themselvs, THEY SPECEFICLY did not say those words, just the russian one. --Jakezing (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Read my proposal again (bolded part) and you will see that it is actually explained: "On May 15, Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China made a joint statement regarding Kosovo during the conference in Ekaterinburg. It was read by the host minister, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and it said "In our statement, we recorded our fundamental position that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo contradicts Resolution 1244. Russia, India and China encourage Belgrade and Pristina to resume talks within the framework of international law and hope they reach an agreement on all problems of that Serbian territory"."--Avala (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Such an important international statement would surely be sourcable to India's and China's official websites, any websites. But so far, you are selling us Russian media quoting the Russian MFA chief, using Russian rhetoric. This will not do as reactions of either India or China. Which is what your edit protect request seeks to alter. --Mareklug talk 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree Lavrov is speaking on behalf of all three nations as the other two FM's and sitting right besides him nodding their heads in agreement while Lavrov says, "In our statement... Russia, India, and China encourage...." video evidence is here = [23] --Tocino 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just the problem -- "(Russia's Foreign Minister) Lavarov is speaking on behalf of all three nations..." He is only entitled to speak for Russia. If the other two nations shared this view officially, they would have issued their own copies of this communique. Where are they? It looks more and more like a PR campaign that representatives of other countries endured, not signed on to. Please provide sources from China or India that they agree officially to this. We are not beholden to the Russian propaganda, and neither is India or China. They are quite adept at speaking for themselves and have the websites that do. --Mareklug talk 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
He is entitled to speak on behalf of all three nations when he clarifies it beforehand by saying, "In our statement... Russia, India, and China encourage...." while the FM's of China and India are sitting right besides him and not objecting. Clarification is the key. When St. Kitts and Nevis make a claim that no other Caribbean nation has made a statement on Kosovo, they provided no evidence that they could speak on behalf of all of the Caribbean community. This is why your edit request was, thankfully, reverted. --Tocino 01:07, 19 june 2008 (UTC)
Note: should we add "nodding head" tocino? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. The proposed entry accurately reflects what Lavrov said and who he's speaking on behalf of. --Tocino 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@Avala: just because I disagree with your edit proposal does not mean that you should complain to administrators. If your edit proposal was strongly sourced, you wouldn't have two oppose votes. Simply, India and China have never, to my knowledge, used such language when referring to Kosovo (specifically "...of that Serbian province.") That is a Lavrov creation, and should not be attributed to the others. That's why I disagree again. --alchaemia (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

      • strongly disagree. There is not one signle chinese official statement. The Chinese government has not issued any statement on this issue, neither any chinese government official. This is based on a russian hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.52.78 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the PRC has issued two statements about Kosovo. Links = [24] [25] --Tocino 00:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The first link leads to a Chinese statement issued the next day after the declaration of independence, and we already source this info. Interestingly, it contains this sentence: "China calls upon Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law and work together to safeguard peace and stability of the Balkan region." Looks like Serbia and Kosovo are addressed disjointly, as separate entities. Highly significant. The other link is to some YouTube video. I think you must be joking -- you want us to source our encyclopedia's Indian and Chinese official reactions to a YouTube video???? --Mareklug talk 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what is so significant about China calling for two seperate entities to renegotiate. All China is saying is that they want the authorities of the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija to compromise with the central government in Belgrade. And no, I am not joking. YouTube is a better source than most as it gives direct video evidence as opposed to a third party reporting what so-and-so said. That is why we have used YouTube as a source before in this article. The YouTube video clearly shows Yang Jiechi and Pranab Mukherjee sitting right next to Sergey Lavrov as Lavrov says "In our statement... Russia, India, and China encourage...." --Tocino 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus has not been reached. Again, I suggest a request for comment to solicit outside opinions. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree. Ok let me tell you what do I think regarding this:They hold together a summit,and always they held all these discussions between them and they reached an agreement,and they released a statement regarding this.Dont you understand that Lavrov is the host of this summit,so he is supposed to read the statement>?The statement refers to all three countries.This definitely is not disputable and it shouldnt be.The same thing would happen if China or India hosted the summit:then the Indian or Chinese PM would have released a statement on behalf of all three countries (or more).Besides that statement read by the Russian FM have also been signed as a declaration by India and China.People we should use the logic a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree. I strongly agree with the discussion.And I support Avala about this.Full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChRis (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Link by China: http://www.chinaconsulatesf.org/eng/xw/t447821.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

South Africa press conference

This [42] dates from 20th February, so not new by any means, but it contains better (and closer-to-source) information than we currently have.
Some key points:

  • Kosovo is not high on South Africa's agenda.
  • Just before the declaration of independence, South Africa "called for continuation of negotiations".
  • South Africa has "consistently reiterated the principle of peaceful political dialogue in the resolution of any conflict".
  • "South Africa holds the view that even at this late hour there remains space for dialogue and negotiations that could help contribute to long-term peace in the Balkans."
  • "South Africa as a member of the UN, a member of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Union upholds and promotes the principle of territorial integrity of states. So it is clear that the current developments in Kosovo have serious implications for the international community."
  • The South African "government will be studying... the political and legal implications of this new development."
  • South Africa "would have preferred a solution to be found within the legal and the political principles set out in the Security Council resolution."
  • "There is no way South Africa can consciously not want to take a position on this. But you can only take a position in a matter that is not ongoing." "It's a question of time before South Africa takes a definite position."
  • "We engaged the Kosovas, we engaged the Serbians both in New York and in the Capital, especially last year. It's not an easy case of saying you can dismiss one of the two, that's why it is complex. If it was an easy question like when you say it's an issue of the occupying power, we know where we stand. We don’t need to go to legal experts. We'd not need to go to politicians because our instructions are very clear. We can't support an occupying power, whether it is in Western Sahara or anywhere else, so we'd know what to do. So why we are seized with this matter it's because we think it's a new and a serious challenge. And once you make a mistake at an international level it's very difficult to retract it. So in order to do a thorough job as officials, we can’t rush the politicians."
  • "It's not a question of us being in the majority or minority, as it has never been. It's not a question of us being with Russia or China and it has never been and it will never be. We've got our own principles that guide us."
  • "We make reports from our missions and because it has legal implications we ask the legal section to give us a legal opinion before we hand over to the politicians. They'll then give us their instructions and we'll wait for the Security Council."

In other words, they haven't made a decision. I think we can come up with an amendment from this. Bazonka (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So much legal mumbo-jumbo from a regime that supports the likes of Mugabe. --alchaemia (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course it's all rhetoric - it was a government press conference - what do you expect? But anyway, still better than the source we currently use. And whether they support Mugabe or not is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few choice quotes from this press conference to the article. Hopefully, nobody will find them controversial - but if so, please revert and discuss here. Cheers! Bazonka (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Unprotected?

Protect the page back immediately! I see no consensus here to unprotect it. Colchicum (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pages in the article space cannot be kept under indefinite protection, even by consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

unprotected

I have unprotected this article at the request of an editor because it has been protected for over 2 months. Mind, the three revert rule, Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view will have very much sway here. Editors who remove reasonably sourced content of any PoV, or against consensus, may be blocked for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it pertain to editors who add controversial content against consensus? I am not impressed by your actions. Colchicum (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by any article that stays under full protection for over 2 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it doesn't matter as long as the article was updated in time. There was absolutely no necessity to unprotect it, everything went smoothly. Well, now we will see. Colchicum (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least semi-protect it against anonymous edits, please. The parent article Kosovo is semi-protected. Colchicum (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how needing to ask for edits to an article by an admin through full protection could ever be called "going smoothly." Two months of full protection goes against everything Wikipedia is about. Let's give the policies and guidelines another chance with open editing. I'll semi-protect as soon as disruptive IPs show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Colchicum, and would prefer to see this article fully protected for the foreseeable future, as it appears to be the one in which most Kosovo-related tensions have been concentrated for over two months now. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring users will very likely be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring is not the only problem of this page. There will be severe POV-pushing. Well, now you will see everything. And if blocks are helpful, why do you think it was protected two months ago? Colchicum (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Time has a way of shifting these things. Let's see how it goes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with unprotecting this page, and said so on Gwen's talkpage before the unprotection. I would much rather have a protected page than a blocked editor. Even the editprotected requests are turning up hard feelings, contentiousness, and ANI threads. I give it a week before we see either a block, a new thread on a noticeboard somewhere, or a new protection. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In unprotecting the page I was not making a choice between protected pages and blocked editors, but between Wikipedia and "not Wikipedia." Meanwhile (no need to answer this, I'm only putting it as a question to stir thought), if editors can't stick to basic policies like 3rr and RS, what's the pith of having the policies? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected because editors weren't sticking to basic policies like 3RR and RS. 2 months is not that long of time, especially for an article about an ongoing, current event type article. It is far less damaging to wikipedia to have the edits on a contentious article "approved" by consensus of involved editors then to have a mainspace article that has its page history filled with reverts and usertalk pages filled with edit war warnings. I think at the very least this article should have semi-protection until it stabilizes (meaning 2009 most likely, given the title to the article). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors should stick to policy. Meanwhile, as User:CharlotteWebb posted elsewhere, on another topic seconds ago, There are no "sensitive articles", only sensitive people. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors should stick to policy. And they should edit dispassionately. And I shouldn't run stop signs when no one's looking, and no one should be mean to puppies. The page was protected because editors weren't sticking to policy. It has continued to be a very heated, and very contentious article (I never said sensitive, and that post is referring to BLP articles, of which this is not), and will for the unforeseeable future, hence the protection. It will cool off in 2009. Do you agree that a semi-protection to prevent damage through anon/new additions is warranted? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(I understand you don't think CW's remark applies here) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If editors can't follow policy (after being politely and patiently nudged towards doing so) they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I've semi-protected, don't like doing it, but agree it will likely help more than hurt. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So far so good. No controversial edits and please stay that way. Things that haven't been cleared up completely should be cleared up here first. Primarily I think about Pristina/Prishtina/Приштина/Priština. That needs to be sorted out before editing. I have checked all other edits and they are fine. All is sourced which is the most important.--Avala (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also pleased since it has been unlocked. I just hope there will be no POV pushing from either parties Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see the article being improved successfully. Good behavior all around. Hope it stays that way, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong about this article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@Avala - the "thing about Pristina/Prishtina/Приштина/Priština" was already sorted out, see here -- CD 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some users pushing for their POV have confused me that it's still a question. Well then we should be consistent, that's it.--Avala (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I should just add that I've modified the protection slightly - it's still semi-protected but it's fully move-protected. This is intended to avoid problems over the naming (Kosovo vs Kosova, etc). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't been involved recently, I've been watching, and I think if the POV-pushing and edit-warring is gone then there's no reason to keep the protection. That being said, if we see the same problems again (I have two editors in mind, I think most can guess who....) then the full protection should be brought back asap. Everybody should still discuss big changes (new statements, recognition etc.) on the talk page first, though, because that is the most effective way to reach a consensus, and keep everything going smoothly. Here's hoping everybody plays nice. BalkanFever 12:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OIC meeting

For some first 'news' about the long-awaited OIC meeting, see here. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

6 have recognized, 4 refuse to recognize, and what about the remaining 47? They better come up with some kind of statement at the end of this. Exo (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Many states will not react if there is no solidarity. Both Turkey and Indonesia are powerful in OIC so others especially smaller states probably decided not to get involved. Virtually allowing homosexual marriage in the new constitution of Kosovo will surely make a few of them to rethink as many of them have a capital punishment for homosexuality itself let alone marriage.--Avala (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you put alot of "surely" and "probably" in your sentences. Hopefully now that the article is semi-protected, we won't see too many "ly"s on the table rows. Exo (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I gave you my view on your question, not my idea for the article ;).--Avala (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your view on the question but that's why I made the comment about the remaining 47 not coming up with any kind of statement. This limbo on their position is causing alot of "maybes" and "perhapses". Like the homosexual marriage argument for instance. Now we don't know whether it's the homosexual marriage or Turkey's and Indonesia's influence or whatever. It's also interesting that when news agencies make the news, they generally put their focus on the disputes, although it would be interesting to hear what everyone thinks about the issue. Although I'm surprised not to see Sudan's name on this article. Anyhow, something should be written in the OIC section regarding this article. Exo (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How can we know about the rest? They could be waiting for the International Court decision on this matter but we can only speculate and speculations can only stay here in discussion (discussion can help in finding more information) but it can't be added to the article. Sudan representatives maybe weren't active in this meeting but they did voice their disapproval last time.--Avala (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, stick to the sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's funny that Algeria, which itself declared independence from France, does not recognize the right of others to declare it as well. And also funny for Egypt, which was essentially setup as a state by ethnic Albanians during the Ottoman Empire. I guess they still mistakenly remember the times with Tito under the sun drinking wine and think that they have a new Tito in Serbia. Or maybe I'm completely off... --alchaemia (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No transcripts? Let's find one and source the crap out of it, like we have with the majority of the entries in this article. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see transcripts, but so far, googling the terms "OIC" "Kampala" and "Kosovo" net no official and recent OIC results.... Perhaps I am not searching so diligently. If anything, I'd love it if there were some sort of transcript or recording of the meeting and then we could go bananas! But alas it is not to be unless someone is more dilligent than I or knows some better search engine tricks. :D Ajbenj (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Policy

I say we all agree on a policy and archive it.
I propose we have a policy in which if someone were to add something controversial to the article that not everyone agrees with, we should remove it from the article and then discuss it here on the talk page, then come to a consensus (like we did with edit requests) then add it to the article when people are happy with it. This way we can help maintain NPOV on the article.
Agree? Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's basically in a nutshell what is supposed to happen on 100% of articles, regardless of the article's content. It's how it's supposed to work, and when it doesn't, the article gets locked down. I hope others agree with your ambitions, Anderson. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree. But for as long as contesting is valid and not based on "Hmmm I don't like this so I am going to say it's not true despite the fact there are 10 references", meaning if sources are present content can only be then altered for precision not removed. If we don't take this amendment we will have all those pro and anti Kosovo users sabotaging the article. I can see controversies regarding things like spelling of Pristina or wording for the heading or the precision regarding statements made in foreign languages but not removal based on POV. --Avala (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that that's how it should be done, but this is a heated article with heated view points...what we need to do is challenge the sources. Alot of people use bad sources or "bridge sourcing" like in the case of Cuba, in order to push their stance on the issue. Government websites should be the best source we have, followed by major medias like Reuters or CNN or whatever, and then in the absence of those we can move on to B92 or KosovaNewReport. But we should definitely avoid things coming from forums or something ridiculous like that, and also any kind of "wishful thinking" type of statements. Exo (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes and along the lines of what Keeper76 said above, this is already Wikipedia policy. A numerical majority of editors can't argue outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy to keep reliably sourced, neutrally worded assertions out of the article text. A single source might be taken as unreliable, but if more than 2 or 3 are given, the coverage alone will tend to trump all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Although we are constantly facing problems with countries with undeveloped diplomacy and internet representation. But it's not a rule just an exception so we can live with not so good source for let's say Sierra Leone because there is no better. Anyway in general article is well sourced.--Avala (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Dodgy sources can be qualified as such in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, alot of underdeveloped countries will cause us alot of strife in terms of trying to source a position or a recognition, but Sierra Leone's source does come from the government of Kosovo. However, that source was considered "unreliable" by Tocino for example, stating that the Kosovo government has no authority to claim anything and only the central government of Belgrade can make such statements. Even government sources are being challenged now just because some editors don't like those governments. Exo (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not all of what I said. I said that the Kosovo Albanian separatist government has a bad track record of making statements of fact that turn out to be untrue, such as them saying that 100 nations will recognize and that Macedonia and Montenegro specifically will recognize and they never have. --Tocino 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If there is only a single source, which has a plausible conflict of interest, I see nothing untowards about leaving it out of the article until 2 or 3 confirming, independent citations show up. All this does is show what's (not) happening in the coverage, which as a tertiary source, is what Wikipedia is meant to do anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo Government did make a mistake about Malaysia too but I take it was an honest mistake due to the fact that the Malaysian representative said how they recognized and it took two months for their minister to refute the information. So we can't ban them altogether from sources but more thorough check is needed (as with anything else, don't think that CNN or BBC always publish truthful information as they make mistakes too).--Avala (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I trust anyday CNN/BBC than RT (russia today) or B92 or even Tanjug. The Kosovar Government gets more credibility than the Serbian websites (.yu) which are pure propaganda. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is why Kosovo Government wrote how Malaysia recognized or how Montenegro and Macedonia are going to do so tomorrow? Anyway here is the trustworthy CNN making a mistake (impossible for you it seems that CNN can do wrong but yes they can) - http://www.riehle.org/humorous-takes/fun-photos/ch-according-to-cnn.jpg --Avala (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kosova Government places information on their website based on real facts. The Kosova people asked the person in charge for representation of Malaysia...he said his country recognized, I am not sure how you can blame the KG (Kosovar Government) over a mis-statement. As far as your link I am not sure what the mistake is, I don't know the story of what happened in 09/25/2001. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at it again, I was concentrating on Germany too much and I thought the picture top left might have been Putin..the map is wrong, Switzerland and Czech Republic, LOL!! I still don't see CNN lying or purposely only reporting incidents of ethnic strife (Albanians supposedly beating Serbs, etc) as the Serbian Government websites claim. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't trust these big international capitalist news stations. They make out to be something their not, eg Fair, Neutral and Reliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Not the Mac/Mont "will they or won't they" speculation again! Is this a sitcom, soap opera, or an actual issue? Anything other than confirmation that Mac and/or Mont have recognized from sources on the other side of the Kosovo border are purely speculation at this time. When they do or don't recognize, we will surely know. And I know, for anyone following this situation, whatever their views on it, this must be agonizing, but please stop speculating and stick to actual facts please! I am certain that considering the development level of Skopje and Podgorica, that any official recognition will be broadcast to everyone concerned and made crystal clear what their position is (once they have an actual position that is). And I am willing to say that any claim by in-Kosovo sources claiming recognition by the two neighboring nations plus an official statement of recognition by the respective MoFAs would be credible. Just stating that those countries *might* recognize on the X day of X month is pure speculation, and only that no matter who says it. Ajbenj (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Morocco

Please restore it!84.134.66.242 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see we have an anonymous user suggesting this. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Why so?-- CD 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong about that?84.134.66.242 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Morocco was mentioned in some journalist review which said Morocco is concerned or something like that. Well I have no doubts this journalist checked his information but we need more than a mention in some broad article about Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothings wrong with it, i just think you should log in and use your real account. Instead of hiding yourself. Personally I believe Morrow should be restored. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTHING to hide. Until yesterday I was not signing in, WP signing in is a PAIN in the butt...it should remember me, it's simply a pain. They just now introduced the 30 day remember me, but it's not working so fine for me. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i use the password remembvber thing to stay logged in--Jakezing (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Next time before you log in, tick the remember me box before typing anything, then log in as you would normally, that should help ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain lobbying

Not the proposition for the article but an interesting reading nonetheless. Spain Lobbies Against Kosovo Independence. Denis MacShane says that Spain is lobbying against Kosovo's independence in the countries of Latin America and that Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia weaken the unity of Europe by refusing to recognise Kosovo and that “this bodes ill for the notion that a united EU diplomacy of weight can develop”. This is the first time that it comes out that Spain is responsible for negative reaction in South America. --Avala (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the direct link: [26] . Do you think we should put something like this in the Spain entry, "Denis MacShane, a former British Minister of State for Europe, said in an editoral that Spain is lobbying Latin American nations against recognizing Kosovo." --Tocino 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It can be added to Wikipedia but not here. This is about direct reaction. This can go to foreign relations of Kosovo article.--Avala (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

Please restore the comment about Iraq.84.134.92.179 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the comment about stuff that wasn't a reaction? Bazonka (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the section in the article about Iraq.84.134.92.179 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It was about what they did before the declaration of independence. See the thread above. Bazonka (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That source we used before had nothing to do with the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, therefore Iraq was rightfully removed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you log in? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo at Miss Universe

Is there somewhere where it would be appropriate to mention that Kosovo is competing at the Miss Universe 2008 pageant, which I believe may possibly be the first major international contest with a Kosovan representative? In terms of the scope of this article, Vietnamese officials initially would not issue her a visa because they do not recognise Kosovo, so she had to travel under an Albanian passport. I'll dig up some references... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How are the entrants picked? Was Miss Kosovo the winner of a Kosovo pageant? I guess this is sort of like the sports federations. Except that it's not a federation - the Miss Universe Organization is a private company, and if they so wanted they could include a Miss Moon and Miss Narnia. Interesting nevertheless. What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Miss Universe is not a reaction of any kind and the fact that Cayman Islands or Guam take part makes this no news.--Avala (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well its an international contest, the organizers didn't allow Kosovo in before the 2008 declaration of independence, and now apparently they are allowing Kosovo in on the grounds it is a country (hence recognizing it). That seems to fit the title heading of an 'international reaction to Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence.' Perhaps it should be categorized under a new heading, like 'other groups and organizations' 71.63.76.95 (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
But does their allowing in set any precedenct, or make a opening or closing of flood gates of recognition, or hell, even honestly matter? its a stupid title that gets a new person every year, the title "miss blah blah blah of blah blah" has no impact, they don't constitutwe a foreign reactio,n its a private company as stated above, and as stated, they could have a "miss black hole, mis moon, ect.--Jakezing (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Aruba, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Guam, Puerto Rico and Turks & Caicos also take part in Miss Universe 2008 contest.--Avala (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok there are certain organisations we should include others we shouldnt. For example we should include political organisations and major sporting organisations. But come on, Miss Universe thats going a bit extreme, would we add the International Boy Scout Organisation? Certain things we should include, others not. I think everyone knows what I mean by that ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from you clearly overlooking the importance of a fifty-three year old institution, you completely missed the second part of my point, which was about the visa issue because the Vietnamese government wouldn't let her in... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that can go in Foreign Relations of Kosovo. its not really a reaction to their declaration of independence. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
She can travel on Serbian passport but I guess that's not patriotic.--Avala (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There are none..and Kosovars used to use YUGOSLAVIAN passports not Serbian. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
He came to Foreign Relations of Kosovo, I said to not add it there. If he really wants to mention it, he can do it on the article of the 2008 pageant. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives

What is wrong with the archives? There is a lot of valuable information in pages 25-35. It would be great to have them back especially now that the article is unlocked. --Tocino 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The information is still there, ive just filled up the archives more, instead of having archives with just 5 points in them, now they have been merged to make them full. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Malta

In the EU Meeting in Brussels, Malta stated that have started the process of recognizing Kosovo, and decision will be made in first week of July by Malta House of Representatives (Foreign and European Affairs Committee) see agenda: [27] and Free Europe report: [28] --Digitalpaper (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

kosovathanksyou.com again

Just how reliable is this website? In the official website of the Kosovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs it is used as a list of the countries that recognised Kosovo, there doesn't seem to be an english version but just click on the right menu under "Njohja e shteteve" (Recognition by States) and you will see that it links to kosovathanksyou.com, the website says it's its not a government site so I don't see a reason why the official government website would use it ? unless of course it was very reliable, any thoughts ? -- CD 23:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it to be a very reliable and valid source. They have not yet said any wrong facts. We can use it and trust it. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think they try very hard to confirm any actual recognition, concerning their predictions I don't trust them entirely. E.g. they still list Portugal as a country recognizing soon, although their seems to be no indication that they will do so in the near future. However, although we cannot use them as a source, they might be still helpful in tracking recognitions. Gugganij (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the website of President Fatmir Sejdiu here. Those are all the countries in which he has received letters of recognitions. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


By the way i wasnt referring to "kosovathanksyou.com", that website is shit. I was referring to "ks-gov.net" as a very reliable and valid source. kosovathanksyou.com is a horrible cheap tacky site. I wouldn't trust it as all. The recently moved Malta up, but without any explanations. How can we use a site made entirely from Kosovo-Albanians kids running a site from home as a source on wikipedia. That would violate wikipedia's guidelines on terms of reliability and probably validity, not to mention WP:POV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
kosovathanksyou.com should be avoided as a source in this article. We should use the official websites of the country's MFA in question with regards to recognition or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@Ijanderson977, why are you going in tirades against Kosovathanksyou.com? A lot of editors are sick of reading about posters here complaining about KT.com --- it's not as if they have attacked WP in any way, shape, or form. The Kosovar Government, I trust their information...again for reliable info on whom recognized click that link that I provided; it's 100% safe. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's coming from THE ONE COUNTRY who'd rather make it look like they have more supporters then they do. if they got their info from all the ocuntries and not just one, then we could trust them, and it isn't about what YOU trust or dobmn't trust here, it's about wether a site that will be pro-kosovoan and gets it's info from ONE source, the kosovo goverment, is trustworthy.--Jakezing (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
KTY.com is openly biased, I don't think we need to discuss this. As far as the Kosovar Government website, we don't need to worry because we've never sourced something simply from the KSgov.net. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


You say people are getting sick at me for complaining about it. I think its fair to say that a lot more editors are getting sick of that stupid propaganda site been mentioned on this talk page Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I never insulted you or marginalised you..I said poeple are sick of reading about 'posters'. Now which website are you referring to? This section is about Kosovathanksyou.com (KTY), or are you talking about the Kosovar Government (ksgov.net)? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I never said you insulted you or marginalised. Im on about the shit kosovathanksyou.com The Kosovo govt site is good Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, KTY is not exactly reliable. I have seen KTY populate the list...and yes on a few occassion I have warned the admins to add a new country (with a source); I would never support an editrequest only based on KTY. As far as the Kosovar Goverment (ksgov.net) they are reliable, I give them more credibility than Serbian government (personal reasons). Ari d'Kosova (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, wtf? Nobody seems to know what they are agreeing to here? How about a summary:

  • Kosovathanksyou.com = BAD
  • Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.ks-gov.net/mpj/) = GOOD

I'm almost 100% sure that this is what everyone here thinks. Is more discussion needed? If someone brings this up again just point them here. BalkanFever 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

yeh i agree 100% with BalkanFever. Kosovathanksyou.com is shit! Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Good summary Balkan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have sourced Kosovathanksyou.com (KTY), even though we all agree it's bad, what did we achieve? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

States which have declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo

Please add Malta [29] and Quatar [30].84.134.118.249 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

These two links say nothing about their reaction. First one says that Kamra Tad-Deputati of Malta will discuss Kosovo but what will they decide? And the second link is only a journalist saying how Qatar might recognize (probably read it on kosovathanksyou).--Avala (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decide? There is a official source now, and matches with report they did in EU meeting that they started the recognition. --Digitalpaper (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you register just to write here or you have a couple of more accounts?--Avala (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala, its all Malta's fault that they decided to recognize Kosovo which made you to react and come over with such questions, Can you do me a favor to create another account for me? --Digitalpaper (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
'Malta OK, Qatar not: I think Malta's source works, but look at the sources from the talk posting above. I have heard on an Albanian.com forum that TopChannel TV of Albania has an article also stating Malta's started the recognition as is Portugal. The TopChannel site will not load on my PC for some reason (the favicon is the only thing that loads off it at all). Let's see if we can add the TopChannel source so we can look into Portugal. As for Qatar, we've seen that article before, discussed it, and dismissed it. Ajbenj (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It says "Agenda for the first Committee Meeting for the 11th Parliament (date to be scheduled): Administrative matters; Address by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs: Partnership for Peace, Kosovo; Other matters" and I don't see any reaction in there let alone decision. Where did you come up with Portugal? 10 days ago Serbian officials thanked Portugal for deciding not to recognize (though it could be the same as Kosovo politicians thanking Macedonia for recognizing but still).--Avala (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because Kosovo is on the Malta Parliament Agenda does not it has declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo. The politicians may decided to vote against Kosovo or they might not. We don't know yet. Lets wait for some more information first. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ian on this. It's on the agenda for debate, but that does not mean they're moving any closer to recognition. By the way, I saw another article about Montenegro recognising Kosovo "soon." ha. Canadian Bobby (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

source? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

does it matter, when they say they will we should be moving in but this is like lithuania, they spent a long time saying "soon" before finnaly moving in to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakezing (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


UNSC debate today

Only Serbia and Russia opposed of the reconfiguration of UNMIK. President of Kosova, Fatmir Sejdiu spoke on behalf of the Republic of Kosova. Anyone know anything more? Maybe some more reactions? Oh, if you want to hear Ban ki Moon, President Sejdiu, President Tadiq, and Croatian Ambassador go to rtklive.com Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

People's Republic of China accepted Ban's Plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.109.3 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

China took note of the plan, it didn't accept it. Anyway Russian ambassador said that Russia will allow only the proposal that is agreed by Belgrade.--Avala (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Source? Ari d'Kosova (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"President of Kosova, Fatmir Sejdiu" what does that mean.--Jakezing (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There is now a legal controversy about whether the UN Secretary General has the authority to act or not. If he proceeds, Ban is in conflict with Russia and Serbia.[31] --DaQuirin (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Earlier Russia indirectly threatened to veto his 2nd term.--Avala (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

@ User Jakezing, it means the president of Kosova (country), Fatmir Sejdiu (name). If you do not know this yet I fear you are editing the wrong articles. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ban sticks with his plan, it seems. [32] The legal conflict around the Secretary General should be included into the article. --DaQuirin (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care who is honesltyy leading the god damned country... just that it is and stays independant. also, don't break the :::'s...--Jakezing (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ban may not get a second term because of strong Russian opposition (whose fake neutrality has now been exposed to be only a different way of saying that they support Belgrade no matter what), but if he had done nothing and let the Russians "win", he would, more than likely, piss off a lot of Americans as well, and would get an American/European veto as well. So he chose the American/European side, which clearly had the majority in the UNSC yesterday. --alchaemia (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For a good summary of Ban's position concerning the status issue (maybe to be included in the article), I suggest the following quote: Ban told the council the U.N. must confront "a profoundly new reality" since Kosovo declared itself an independent nation in February. He said the U.N., as interim administrator, is not in a position to handle as effectively the vast majority of tasks it dealt with in the past. "This needs to be acknowledged as a fact of life," he said. [33] --DaQuirin (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The official documentation of the UNSC meeting on Kosovo is here, with interesting material for the positions of states like Panama, Viet Nam, and other states. --DaQuirin (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link DaQuirin! An interesting read. --alchaemia (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When does 2nd term of the UN General starts?So is it definite that Russia is going to put a veto against him?What is the position of China in the issue?Will they use a veto too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Albania

Can we add that somewhere?

http://www.mrt.com.mk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4964&Itemid=28 84.134.72.5 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is an international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an important question but it is not for this article.--Avala (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As User:Mareklug would say, they are speaking a lot of "bullshit". If they call for a Greater Albania right now that will displease their USA/EU/NATO bosses. What I think will happen is the Kosovo Albanian separatist government will tire of being the Taiwan of Europe and they will eventually ask to split the province in half, the north remaining with Serbia but with no autonomy while the south will join Albania. After this issue is settled, the Albanians will turn their attention to western Macedonia. Just my two cents. --Tocino 18:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take that pov stuff away and stop calling them sepratists, --Jakezing (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino. They won't tire as they are independent, so they will run themselves like any other country. They will not join with either Albania or Serbia as this would piss of US/EU/NATO who have basically made Kosovo independent. I admit its going to take Kosovo a long time for the rest of the world to accept Kosovo, but Kosovo is no way "the Taiwan of Europe". Taiwan is isolated and never declared independence. Kosovo declared independence with western support and is by no means isolated, therefore will not "tire" and give up as you suggest. lots of businesses are setting up/ opening in Kosovo, futures going to be good economically. Just remember it took well over six months for Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and BiH to get a single recognition (It took Serbia 9 years btw). So Kosovo isn't doing bad at all, it could be doing better though. Albanians in Western Macedonia won't brake away, as Macedonia will be in the EU by 5-10 years and they won't allow it, not to mention NATO/US. They only reason Kosovo has been able to brake away is due to the "special" status it has, Western Macedonia doesn't have this special status, just like Kosovo didn't have Orthodox Churches until the early 1990s. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling Kosovo the Taiwan of Europe if anything is insulting to Taiwan, because Taiwan has a thriving economy while Kosovo has 50% unemployment. They may think they are independent but they will never be effectively independent without membership in international organizations and also the vast majority of nations essentially boycotting them. --Tocino 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
yeh that is true. However Kosovo is gaining recognition whilst poor Taiwan is loosing recognition each year, due to China. Kosovo has almost doubled the amount of recognition, which Taiwan has. What Taiwan and Kosovo both have in common is backing from the US. If you think of the future, Taiwan will be even more isolated and Kosovo more internationally recognised. Like i said its going to take a long time before Kosovo is accepted internationally. Peace man. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

USER TOCINO, you have YET AGAIN taken another discussion hostage and turned WP into your own personal playground. If I read one more word from you that is neither for this discussion (Albania) or the words "separatists", "session", "the snake", I promise I am going to delete it. Ijanderson977, please end this discussion or continue it elsewhere. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

POV though Tocino is, I don't see what's wrong with the word "separatist". I think Tocino refers to the "separatist government" in order to infer its illegitemacy, but I don't think it does infer this. The Kosovars want to be separate from Serbia, so from either side's position the word seems appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Serbian language and media, and especially in those media that have an anti-Albanian tone, as our dear friend Tocino does here, the word "separatisti" is usually affiliated with people of Albanian descent for whom it is claimed that they are many things, of which the most important are: terrorists, criminals, members of the mafia, etc. The word separatist is usually used together with the word "terrorist" in Serbian media (there are exceptions, like B92) and they usually mean "Albanian terrorist-separatists." In essence, and this has become somewhat of a cultural form in Serbia, a separatists is an Albanian who's also a terrorist and a criminal. I know he will deny this, but he can only fool those that don't understand Serbian and especially those that didn't and don't follow Serbian media. --alchaemia (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how language can carry so much nuance and meaning and historical significance, which often leads to misunderstanding and resentment amongst people of different cultures trying to debate different viewpoints. I also was of the idea that "separatist" was a neural term that just meant people wanting to separate, whether for good or for ill. Thank you for the explanation.--Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I also thought separatists was a neutral term too, however it can be applied negatively too. For example the sepratists in Spain are viewed upon as negative, by the Spanish. So when the word sepratists can be used to imply/ associate negatively. ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New Declaration from Montenegro PM Milo Djukanovic

Not a Time Frame but still a clear indication on Montenegro's intentions in my opinion.

How do you see Kosovo’s future? Is a normalisation of relations with Serbia possible?
It is inevitable. Sooner or later Serbia has to come to terms with the policy mistakes that it has made during a number of decades. ... "Many important member states of the EU and the international community as a whole have already recognised Kosovo so I do not believe that any serious person would like the wheel of history to go back."
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/030-32551-189-07-28-903-20080624STO32550-2008-07-07-2008/default_en.htm Emetko (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You must keep in mind who he is talking to. He's speaking with the radical anti-Serbia politicians at the EU Parliament so of course he is going to suck up to them. There are so many conflicting signals coming from Montenegrin leaders. In April Đukanović said that Kosovo has caused a strom in Europe and that Montenegro has not recognized Kosovo because it is following its national interests. The Kosovo Albanian separatist government just said the other day that Montenegro will recognize only for Montenegro to respond will a forceful "No, we will not." The fact is that Montenegro has only been independent for two years and it has delicate demographics. If Montenegro recognizes Kosovo then it risks losing half of its small territory as the Serb dominated North might declare independence in response. Montenegro has more Serbs than Albanians and the native Montenegrins are basically genealogical brothers of Serbs. Montenegro wants to join EU/NATO and they are pressured to recognize Kosovo by USA and the anti-Serbian politicians in the EU/NATO but then again recognizing Kosovo is not a requirement to join those organizations as Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Cyprus have proven. It is an interesting situation that Montenegro is dealing with. --Tocino 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino, for the last time I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In response to the presentation of a source you set out to stir up political speculation again. If you keep using this page or related talk pages to express your own views on this issue, often aggressively and uncivilly, you may be banned under the Macedonia Arbcom probation that stipulates that this kind of disruption is not allowed. Húsönd 21:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous warning. I responded that the comments didn't mean much because of who he was speaking to and I explained the realities of the situation that Montenegro is facing and why it is unlikely that they will recognize. With all due respect, I don't think you are the most impartial admin judging from you participation in the Myanmar/Burma debate and also by looking at your userpage. You seem to be a EU/NATO enthusiast who is opposed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations like Serbia and Myanmar. I think you should be allowed to participate as a regular editor but not as an admin on these controversial subjects considering your POV. --Tocino 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Launching absurd accusations will not help your case at all. Just for the record: 1) I'm personally opposed to NATO, and even if I supported NATO that would still not be for here; 2) Burma/Myanmar has also nothing to do with this article, it's definitely not for here; 3) It's useless to start ranting about my alleged POVs and my far-fetched (yet interesting) agenda against national sovereignty. I'm not discussing POVs at all, I'm just reminding you of the conduct that you must abide to in Kosovo-related articles. That's all you need to focus. Húsönd 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "radical anti-Serbia", there is no such a thing, if you are a radical than you are pro-Serbia. As far for the "delicate demographics" that is bologna considering that these Montenegrin minority came out in 2006 to form a supermajority win (at least 55%) for a split AGAINST serbia. Not all Serbs are the type of people that bring pictures of Seshel (seslje) to soccer games and chants "we will kill you, you dirty moslems". Montenegro will recognize, it has no other option, last year over 200,000 Kosovars went to their country to Ulqin; there are interests from both sides it's just a matter of "when" not "will they". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
radical not Radical.--Avala (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Just as many, if not more, Serbian tourists visit Montenegro, particularly in Herceg Novi and Tivat. Montenegrins, for the most part, are not anti-Serb, like how Albanians and Croatians are for example, so they are not looking to spite Serbia whenever possible. --Tocino 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The croats have very good reasons behind why they hate the serbs, just look at yugoslavia and it's crimes. albanians have a reason to, they opressed and tried to slaughter alot of kosovars. now "He's speaking with the radical anti-Serbia politicians at the EU Parliament so of course he is going to suck up to them. There are so many conflicting signals coming from Montenegrin leadersYou said sucking up, you dont knwo he is, that is POV so therfor we can't accept that as a word therfor, no, you called them radical because they agree with kosovo, also extremly pov and not to be listend to, 3rd, liek i said, just leave the article and cool down you ain'tr going anywhere here--Jakezing (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please - WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--Avala (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Avala ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Avala too.(202.161.76.219 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Context: Christian Science Monitor's article about Obrad Savić

May be of interest to the editors: A Christian Science Monitor article published today sketches Serbian political philosopher Obrad Savić's teaching in Prishtina. Obrad Savić is one of the founders of the Belgrade Circle: "In embattled Kosovo, Serb professor teaches common ground", Robert Marquand, Christian Science Monitor, 26 June 2008. Link accessed 2008-06-26. --Mareklug talk 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

China once again

Im a little bit confused regarding Chinas position over Kosovo regarding the terminology used in the article.Did China used veto against Kosovo independence,or did they just expressed a concern?And Whats the difference between those two?What is the official opinion of China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008, is not expected to be admitted to the UN in the near future due to Russia's and China's resistance to recognize Kosovo, as admission to the UN requires approval from the Security Council, and Russia and China, being two of the five permanent members of the Security Council, have veto power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So the above statement practically says,that China also used veto power,and is concerned regarding Kosovo independence.Or im reading this wrong?Can we sort out this problem about China?So two countries officially used veto power to the Kosovo declaration of independence?

If for some reason the Russians couldn't be at the UN to veto, then China would use it's veto. They are strongly opposed to separatism. --Tocino 01:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Tocino answer his question not beat around the bush. China expressed concern (translation: very worried) but only RUSSIA threatened to veto the resolution. In the end the bill was not even introduced because Russia said they would veto...in conclusion no one vetoed anything. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is,that if there is any voting at the UN regarding Kosovo being a member,China can always use its veto against the decisions,which im sure they will use it.I suppose the next UN Security Council meeting over Kosovo will be in September,so we have to wait what decisions there will be.---not signed



Neither Russia or China used their veto because the vote on this is in September, now please Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about the confused IP; WP:FORUM.--Avala (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FILA and IWF recognized Kosovo.

Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports of the Republic of Kosovo reports that on June 9 International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) has recognized and accepted with full membership privileges the Kosovo Wrestling Federation.

The Ministry also reports that International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has confirmed the membership acceptance of Kosovo Weightlifting Federation on June 18.

Valton Beqiri, the Kosovo Minister for Culture, Youth and Sports has recently attended the annual convention of World Sports Federations and Associations in Athens, Greece. Minister Beqiri used the opportunity to present the situation of the sports and its capacity in the Republic of Kosovo.

http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080626991/Culture-and-Sports/More-recongitions-for-Kosovo-sports.html


Please add. User:66.59.107.20

The IWF website has confirmed the status of Kosovo as a new member. However, nothing regarding Kosovo is on the FILA website. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

84.134.103.22 (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)What is wrong with it?

See the section above about countries which regonise. And please sign after your post. BalkanFever 08:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

But thats nonsense. The page is good as it is.84.134.110.144 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeh it is as good as it is, but its not good enough in the terms of neutrality and presenting a fair and balanced article. This page is not WP:NPOV 82.38.249.55 (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It shows meanings. There is nothing to balance here.84.134.61.246 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not WP:NPOV as there are many features which support the Serbian Governments view point Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I get your point. They might reflect but not support the Serbian Government view point. But also they reflect the view point of Kosovo Government. Basically both sides are explained which brings us to the fact that article is quite neutral.--Avala (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Ten times better than Kosova. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong. Only Tocinos comments on the talk-page should be removed.84.134.64.51 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section gives undue weight to Spain as compared to other members of the EU (let alone the rest of the world): Spain will not take part in the EULEX mission until legal questions over how it will replace the UN administration are answered. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos told a meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers in Slovenia that Spain will not send its contingent to the EULEX mission until there has been a formal transfer of powers from the United Nations. It is unacceptable, as per WP:LEAD the section should only provide a summary of the article. The info should be moved down to the Spanish section or turned into a footnote. Colchicum (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

Character set problem

{{editprotected}}

 Not done. I don't really understand where I am with this request per Colchicum's comment. I'd advise requesting it from one of the helpful people below, if it's not done already. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The list of references contains the following:

216: # ^ NEWSru.ua :: Äæåì³ëºâ: Êîñîâî íå âèçíàëè ò³ êðà¿íè, ó ÿêèõ º âíóòð³øí³ ïðîáëåìè

The Russian characters are corrupted. Clicking on the link, I see that the title of the article is "Джемілєв: Косово не визнали ті країни, у яких є внутрішні проблеми". Request: Replace the accented Latin characters with the correct Russian text.

This ought to be non-controversial. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

This page isnt fully protected, also read WP:BOLD Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's Ukrainian, not Russian. Colchicum (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. — Emil J. (formerly EJ) 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Morocco

I see that Morocco is back on the list. What's the point? Having an article named "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence", and then having an entry saying "no statement on Kosovo has been sourced as of 19 March 2008" seems pretty weird to me.

Then, we might as well add every single country who haven't made a statement about Kosovo yet.Sveknu (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would actually read the reference, it is dated February 19, 2008. Correct me if im wrong, but that is two days after Kosovo declared independence. The source says "countries like Morocco and Sudan are concerned about secession of ethnic groups within their own territories", the whole source is on Kosovo. Peace Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's the point. It is no official reaction or statement. It's more of a general description of internal matters in Morocco, and has nothing directly to do with Kosovo. I know it's possible to interpret this as another way of saying that Morocco won't recognize (and in reality they probably won't because of their situation with Western Sahara), but if that's the case then why haven't they come up with a clearer statement or something? This isn't even a statement at all, it's a very short (half a sentence) description of something made by a third party-source that tells us next to nothing, really. Entries in the article should be based on more than this. Peace to you too. Sveknu (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it so the people from Belgrade don't start raging how this is pro-Kosovo article. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is technically a far stretch, kind of like Cuba and it's "assumed position", rather than a formal or semi-formal position. It is relevant to the Kosovo topic but that's pretty much it. I would not consider it ecyclopedic content, however I'll let the others decide. The standards in this article seem to be changing back and forth. Exo (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

States which have declared formal intent to recognise Kosovo

Please add

Source:

[34] 84.134.57.52 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user. Thank you for your contribution.
Based on the article source you provided, I'd wouldn't include Armenia though ("not exclud[ing] the chance to recognize and set full diplomatic ties with the new nation" is not really a statement of immanent recognition. The "diplomatic source" on Portugal is not really sufficiently reliable,as it cannot be verified. The summary intent by the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman is probably also not sufficiently sourced/reliable. I.e. that leaves Malta, Bangladesh and Qatar. Passportguy (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then please include them.84.134.57.52 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will, but I want to give others at least a few hours to comment. This article is highly controversional and others may have reservations about the source of the information. But if you wish to go ahead now, you can add them yourself. Passportguy (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.84.134.57.52 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh, Malta and Qatar are long overdue and should have appeared a long time ago. The others need stronger sources. Exo (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Bangladesh, Qatar and Malta should be on the list. --alchaemia (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Portugal? I think this source is quit clear!84.134.93.251 (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NewKosovoandMetohijaReport is a biased, propaganda outlet set up by separatists who wish to tear Serbia apart.. They publish words such as "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration"... link here = [35] Sorry, but this source by itself is just not good enough. --Tocino 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper/publication/website with "Metohija" on its name can very well be biased and one-sided; it is more than likely located in Belgrade, the heart of Serbian nationalism. Since we're not talking about a website called 'NewKosovoandMetohijaReport" but one calling itself the New Kosovo Report, I think we can safely assume that any bias they have is a fabrication on your part, and a cheap one at that. --alchaemia (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop using that "100 countries will recognise thing" its getting old. A source is reliable when they use direct quotes. Even you have said this before. I dont like using New Kosovo Report when its their own views and analysts, but direct quotes is good enough for us to use. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Also Tocino, please be WP:CIVIL and stop inflicting your own personnel viewpoints into this page Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok then how about this one... "Macedonia and Montenegro expected to recognize Kosovo in June".... link here = [36] . Once again this isn't even a proper news outlet, it's a propaganda website run by separatists, which has no credibility and will say anything regardless of the facts. I wouldn't put it past them to completely make up those quotes. --Tocino 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It says the word "expected" therefore not 100%. Also its not run by separatists, its run by Swedish people. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It just shows that they've been horribly wrong about saying so-and-so will recognize in the future. Their servers may be in Sweden but it is run by Albanians. Although certainly there are those outside of the Balkans who do not respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, such as Carl Bildt. --Tocino 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are suc ha stupid and criminal bastard. People like you should be in priosn for life.84.134.56.88 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just not cool. Please do not personally attack others here. This is NOT a forum on the topic. Ajbenj (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
@ Tocino - They don't produce horribly wrong things, they report facts. For example in this source you used a lot [37] it is a fact that Thaçi said 100 countries would recognise. Another example in this source you used [38] it is a fact that IFIMES news paper reported Macedonia will recognise independence of Kosovo right after it holds its elections on 1 June and its also a fact that the Montenegrin daily Dan wrote that 16 June is increasingly being mentioned as a possible date when Montenegro could decide to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. Weather or not this actually happened doesn't make "New Kosovo Report" unreliable because they are reporting what newspapers and politicians are saying. For example the BBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, Al Jazeera, Russia Today, France 24 ect all reported that Morgan Tsvangirai was going to stand for the run-off presidential election in Zimbabwe, however he didnt. So according to your logic all them news stations are unreliable because they reported something which didnt happen. You obviously have no idea what the word "fact" means Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I totallly agree with that.84.134.56.88 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If the BBC reported that 100 nations were planning to recognize Taiwan in a month and it never happened, I am pretty sure that the BBC would be in deep trouble. NewKosovoandMetohijaReport has no ethical standards and it will spin any little bit of information into being positive for the separatists. Just take a look at some of the editorals on there. It is not a reliable source. --Tocino 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
@TocinoIf the BBC reported that John Smith said that 100 nations were planning to recognise Taiwan in a month and it never happened the BBC wouldnt be in trouble, that would still be fact, because they are reporting what John Smith said. Therefore making NewKosovaReport reporting that Thaci saying that 100 nations were planning to recognise Kosovo in a month, even though it never happened, it would still be fact a fact that Thaci said it and thats what they were reporting. So please explain how NewKosovaReport is unreliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make it simple.

NOT A FACT/ FALSE

  • NewKosovoReport reporting that 100 countries would recognise Kosovo in the next month.
  • BBC reporting that 100 countries would recognise Taiwan in the next month.

FACT/ TRUE/ RELIABLE

  • NewKosovoReport reporting that Thaci said that 100 countries would recognise Kosovo in the next month.
  • BBC reporting that John Smith (made up guy) said that 100 countries would recognise Taiwan in the next month.

hopefully this easy nutshell analysis enables everyone to understand Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC would never print John Smith's nonsense, while NewKosovoandMetohijaReport is a mouthpiece for the separatists and they play loose with the facts. If these quotes from Malta, Qatar, and Bangladesh are legit then why don't we see them printed in other, more respectable media? --Tocino 21;11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
John Smith was meant to represent a politician. You are not been civil with NewKosovaReport, first off you dont call it by its real name, secondly you can't come up with real reasons as to why it is unreliable and thirdly you blame everything on "albanian separatist rant rubbish". I admit that it is pro Kosovo. But then again B92 is pro Serbian, FOX is pro American and BBC is pro British. Please come up with real reasons as to why it is unreliable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Malta, Qatar, and Bangladesh actually name their sources, so I agree with the statements above in support of adding them. On Armenia, I would add the statement into the current listing, as it isn't clearly stated that Armenia will definetly recognize or even started the legal process to do so, only that that option is on the table for discussion. The Armenia statement provides the Armenian president (speaking to the Russian media) as a source, so it shouldn't be left out. Although we ought to find the actual Russian media article and use that as the linked source. Ajbenj (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Dutch embassy to be opened

"27 Jun 2008 | The Cabinet has decided that the Netherlands will open an embassy in Pristina following Dutch recognition of Kosovo’s independence on 4 March." [39] --DaQuirin (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice find. Please include it in the article. --alchaemia (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes for countries which recognize

Please don't let the bot archive this section. It is the anchor for the link in the {{POV|Notes for countries which recognize}} template placed at the top of the article. --Mareklug talk 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Why is that notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize are allowed, yet notes explaining the situation within countries that do recognize arae not allowed? For example I recently put this in the Czech Republic entry:

Significant opposition to recognition of Kosovo within the nation. Every opposition party opposed recognition and so did some of the governing ODS party, including President Václav Klaus who said he felt ashamed when the government decided to recognize.[43] A month after announcing recognition, the decision is still highly controversial within the Czech Republic.[44]

Yet it was deleted within 15 minutes. Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. Also those two citations explain why there is no Czech embassy in Pristina, because it is too controversial. Finally it is highly notable when a head of state says he is ashamed over actions of the government. This is valuable information that belongs on the article. --Tocino 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is simple, the formal recognition overwrites all other views held. There's always people who have different opinions. Do you suggest we add the views of Čedomir Jovanović to the official reaction of Serbia? Only in a dictatorship can one country have one view concerning one subject. The fact of the matter is that Czech Republic has formally recognised the Republic of Kosovo as an independent and soverign state and you will have to learn and live with it. Getting used to things that you don't like is a process, after I while you will cope better.
Finally, your post reveals two very important points: (1) obviously, the President of the country in question holds very little power in the country and cannot influence decisions -- so, why quote an official who has no power to influence a decision that makes him feel "ashamed", a person with a moral compass would have resigned when their government's actions made her/him ashamed, that says everything one needs to know about the person you wish to quote -- and; (2) since recognitions are not set in stone then let's wait until something formally changes, if it ever does. Clearly, what you mean by valuable information is valuable only to your very strong POV. Kosovar (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And not formally recognizing overwrites all other views held. So why don't we just list the 150 UN member states which support Serbian sovereignty and territorial integrity without explanation? --Tocino 21:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, not formally recognising overwrites all other views held. The argument works both ways, no one claimed otherwise. However, where you are wrong is describing all countries that have not recognised the Republic of Kosovo as supporting Serbia. Does Pakistan really support Serbia? There are countries that oppose the Kosovar independence and there are those that are neither supporting nor opposing the Kosovar independence and will decide what line to take in due course, as is the case of New Zealand. To complicate matters further, different people based on their POV (and you clearly have very strong POV) read differently from the same official statements of different countries. For this reason, there is a good argument to have some comments from countries that are undecided, but I would not be too concerned if they were removed, as long as someone -- you, for example -- don't suggest that they support the Serbian position on this matter. Kosovar (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately you recognize or you don't. It's been a half a year since the Kosovo Albanian separatists proclaimed unilateral declaration of independence and the 150 UN member states have had plenty of time since then to recognize. --Tocino 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The simple reason is that the table of recognizing countries is just that : a table. If everyone adds his personal POV on who supported and who opposed recognition (and there are both in every country), the table will become cluttered and cease to be a table. If you are really interested in extended (i.e. more than three sentences) coverage of the Czech response to Kosovan independance, consider starting a page such as "Czech repsonse to Kosovan independance". There you could, in a NPOV manner, list pro and con views on Czech recognition. Passportguy (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Recognitions are not set in stone. If a new government is elected then they can annul recognition of Kosovo. No, this is not possible, recognition is, at least in the theory of international law, an irreversible act (except of the disappearance of a state by war or peaceful unification with another state etc.) which makes the relevant decisions so hard-fought here (you did not understand this important point so far, it seems). The historic example of China / Taiwan was different, because the international community did recognize only one government for all of China, and so the People's Republic replaced the Taiwan government (there was no new recognition of "China", so Beijing took the UNSC seat). Now with the recognition of a state, being irreversible, the continuing bickering for example in the Czech republic is not relevant here. And it explains why the opponents and the Serbian government are so bitter about the decision to recognize Kosovo. Again: the recognition of states must be distinguished from the recognition of governments. "New states are generally recognized as such by other states if their origin is considered legitimate and irreversible." see for example the Swiss foreign ministry website [40] or every textbook on international law. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There may not be much precedent for it, but it can be done. What are they going to do if you change your mind about recognition of a non-UN member? Kosovo Albanian separatists would complain and so would their bosses, but no serious repercussions would happen. --Tocino 21:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it could be done, war could be declared as well! You are not well informed about international law, so it makes it useless to enter a political debate. Whether Kosovo is a UN member or not, makes of course no difference for the act to recognize. And there are some too well known precedents for that, at least in the former Yugoslavia. With the act of recognition, all the major Western states decided to accept Kosovo as a subject of international law, like Germany or Serbia, Bulgaria or the Vatican. That is what it's all about here! The only way to annul the decision will be another war in the Balkans which should not happen for everybody's sake. --DaQuirin (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. It's highly unlikely that Czech Republic declares war against Kosovo Albanian separatists, while it's somewhat likely that the next Czech government annuls recognition. --Tocino 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, they cannot. This is what you do not understand. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they can. You do not provide evidence that suggests that Czech Republci cannot annul recognition with a change of heart. -- Tocino 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
From a European or Czech point of view, this would be a serious breach of international law. All your arguments are strictly political ones, which are not the issue here. One can be for or against recognition. Once the decision is taken, a state considers the origin of a recognized state as "legitimate and irreversible" (see every - including Serbian - textbook on international law). --DaQuirin (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
International law is not an issue here. If they followed international law word for word, then the European states would've never allowed Kosovo Albanians to declare independence without Serbia's consent. --Tocino 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. I am unsure if the future Czech govt will derecognize like they claim but it's not the question, the question is can they do it and the answer is yes they can.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
International law is not an issue here. Both of you should at least give one source for your claim that the Czech opposition or President Klaus will not only have "a change of heart" but are about to reconsider the recognition of Kosovo as a legitimate state. This would be interesting! --DaQuirin (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS:There is a thing called derecognition and it's not only theoretical as it happened before. Any example for this? --DaQuirin (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do any of you realise what message a "derecognition" of this kind would send about a country who originally recognized? It's a flip flop that would stain that country's foreign policy and undermine it's international standing to the highest degree. Which is why alot of countries have trouble regaining support with the Western crew after making serious blunders of that kind. Concerning the comments on the recognition table debacle, formal recognition overrides any kind of secondary POV regarding the process. We add the MOST FORMAL position we can come up with, and if a country legally recognizes another country, everything else is TMI. It could but it could not, maybe but perhaps, probably but who knows. Yeah, formal stance is RECOGNIZED. Why don't we also use a different shade of green on the map to reflect who agreed more to the recognition and who didn't. Exo (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add, that a lot of these "notes explaining the situation within the nations which don't recognize" have been forced on us by User:Tocino and User:Avala, and are not really needed, or strictly defensible, but are thinly veiled OR consisting of creatively spliced point of view-pushing quotations, meant to create an appearance of a convincing, sourced reaction that essentially condemns independent Kosovo.
If a neutral observer were to audit the edits done by these editors since the article was unlocked, he or she would be dismayed to find a POV-pushing sequence of additions that continues to propagate this pattern of activity. All these additions advance the cause of representing a given country as opposing Kosovo's independence. I purposefully held back and simply sat back to see how this situation would unfold. Well, it went on unchecked, until Tocino started injecting the same POV-pushing slanting into descriptions of countries that did recognize, first in the case of the Czech Republic, and if unchecked, would have gone on to perform similar enhancements for Poland or Bulgaria, to judge from his earlier edits (before the article was locked).
I must say, that none of this strikes me as respectable writing of an encyclopedia. And so the article continues to slide into reflecting Serbian government's POV as a whole, as other editors have refused to engage in similar activity on behalf of Kosovo. Accordingly, no one has added updates for Georgia, Ukraine, or Portugal that would mention the pro-Kosovo statements and actions made by the respective prime ministers. Their reactions were amply aired on this talk page and proposed for addition, but were opposed and blocked by these editors: The Prime Minister of Portugal saying that his country will eventually recognize Kosovo; the statements of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko of Ukraine about carefully probing the issue; and the famous recorded interview in Estonia of Georgia's Prime Minister, who in perfect English famously said that as Georgia's friends have recognized Kosovo, it is only to be expected that Georgia will eventually do likewise. All these international reactions are simply missing, because no one is crusading a la Avala and Tocino, on the other side of the ledger.
I am rather disgusted with all the sewn-up "Frankenquote" explanations, as this material represents dubious scholarship, in sum, a failure to provide a balanced accounting.
If anything, I would suggest that instead of expanding these creative endeavors in the service of Serbia's government, as Tocino wants to do, or balancing them with counter-propaganda on behalf of Kosovars, Wikipedians are obligated to see to a massive revision of this sad article, drastically reducing its length: Let us dispense with point-of-view collages altogether, either pro-Serbian or pro-Kosovan, that are currently stitched all over the tables like some quilts, spliced from carefully groomed quotations.
For example, China's reaction is construed for much of its volume as what the Russian Prime Minister said, using his words -- does this practice not remind those whow were around to witness it, Tocino's outrageous installation of an entry for Free Tibet, consisting of a Kosovo-and-Tibetans-are-guilty-of-this utterance by the same Russian Foreign Minister whose words now speak for India and China in our article, after Avala's and Tocino's edits, which never received consesnus when the article was locked, so Avala lobbied an administrator to lift page protection?.
These quote collages, sort of bouquets arranged to form a suggestive picture, should simply be deleted, and only normative reactions, clearly ascribed to official publications of the government in question should be retained, without slanting, which is that happened, among others, in the case of Slovakia, where the government has not yet formally issued a formal ruling on Kosovo, and will not do so for 3 more months, but our article already paints a suggestive collage of opinion that amounts to Slovakia rejecting Kosovo -- and that, in turn, is used on Commons to color Slovakia red on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg map by the very editor who prepared this suggestive collage in the first place!
In fact, the article, after corrective downsizing, would only gain on credibility and readability, sacrificing only one-sidededness and wordiness.
The editors who edit in this vein have laid down a smoke screen, arguing that they are only using sources, but in fact, they are misusing them abjectly, in the service of crafting a pre-ordained interpretation, in some cases using partisan sourcing altogether (websites located in Belgrade or in Prishtina), and in a few, outright lying as to what the source actually contains.
In Ukraine's writeup, the quote sourcing Oleg Blohin Oleh Bilorus was nontrivially abridged, thereby changing the scope of what he said, in effect misusing the source. To the naked eye, without following the link and comparing texts critically, we have here a categorical statement, a sourced quote and a properly referenced official source. The same technique was employed months earlier in the case of writing up Armenia, since corrected.
Editing of this ilk had been repeatedly protested on this talk page when the article was locked, but to no avail. Now, with the article unlocked, the fabricated Bilorus misquote lives on, while new quotes are being one-sidedly added to the pile, all "good sourcing". --Mareklug talk 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Fixes applied. Mareklug talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Improved for clarity. Mareklug talk 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF. And I am strongly opposed to deleting information just because it may suggest that the respective nations are against recognizing. --Tocino 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I was the one who brought up the Estonian story about Georgia recognising and I was set upon as though I were the most evil person in existence - not hyperbole considering our group here. I've seen many stories that I thought were worthy of mention here but didn't act because I knew our pro-Serbian delegation would metaphorically beat me to death for mentioning them. There is a certain air of intimidation pervading this topic because you know that if you broach a topic that is not pro-Serbian you will be obstructed and argued to the point of despair. And now you'll beat on me for posting this, which is de rigeur. To our pro-Serbian posters: We get it. You really, really, really hate Kosovo. You gloat over how it doesn't have widespread recognition and every bad thing that happens in Kosovo is a blessing from heaven for you. Great. Good luck with that. However, it is a polity that exists and we're trying to document it as neutrally as possible. Kindly stop accusing everybody who doesn't agree with you of being a pro-Albanian separatist and spy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an overreaction and I am genuinely baffled as to how you can feel this way. First of all there is no cabal that secretly controls and bullies this article, if anything the so-called pro-Serbian posters are outnumbered four-to-one on here. The reason why your proposed entry for Georgia failed is because less than 24 hours after the initial comments the government was backtracking and saying that the PM misspoke. --Tocino 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The PM himself never said that he misspoke, and there exists no source that he ever recanted. The only source referencing the "backtracking" did not accuse the PM of misspeaking, but alluded to him being misunderstood. So much for your accuracy. You chose to censor all this, while adding partisan-sourced and partisan-chosen quotes to further make this a one-sided accounting. So, don't be baffled at the vehemence of Canadian Bobby's say, or my denouncement of your editing practices and those of User:Avala. Furthermore, you doggedly enter these neverending threads, and simply outlast opposition. Meanwhile, the article either gets locked, or people give up, not wishing to be blocked for edit warring. --Mareklug talk 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Misspoke, misunderstood are the same thing basically. The fact is that less than 24 hours after the PM spoke to the obscure Estonian journalist, the opposition pounced on the comments demanding an explanation. The bizarre comments which contradict everything else that the Georgian government has been saying, obviously embarrassed those in charge since the government quickly retracted, distancing themselves from the comments, and reiterating that Georgia will not, and has no plans to recognize. So with the the entire situation explained, the comments are not worthy of being on this article. --Tocino 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
For the love of God stop posting these text blocks where you attack me without any reason or proof. It's like you have turned on a "rant machine" and you type hysterical things like Blohin with heaps of other mistakes. Take a deep breath next time and don't downgrade Wikipedia with such posts as the one above.--Avala (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for flagging mistakes, and the lapse of "Oleg Blohin" instead of Oleh Bilorus. I corrected the typos and the thinko, but the gist of my accusation remains, and I stand by it. This article needs radical surgery and, frankly, delousing. It is not encyclopedic, and it is not edited with fairness in mind. --Mareklug talk 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the resistance of two certain members, namely Avala and Tocino, has been causing this article to be very heated and at times inaccurate, and most often for no reason. From Avala, the outstanding observation I have noticed right off the bet is the illusive and wishfulthinking type of writtings. Words probably or surely have been used alot out of nowhere or out of pre-conclusions over what a diplomat might have said. I could cite the Brazil episode where the explanation box was twisted in such a way to make it appear as if Brazil's opposition was as strong as Serbia or Russia. Another classic one is Cuba, where the brother of the father of the mother of the sister of the diplomat said something, and it surely must be the stance of the neighbor too. With Tocino, the oppositions are much more irratic and hilarious at the same time. He opposes pretty much anything pro-Kosovo being written in there, and while he's at it, he comes up with new goldposts and standards. My favorite episode was when he claimed that the separatist government of Kosovo has no authority or right to claim that anyone has recognized them and somehow only Belgrade has such a power. Hence, the websites of the separatist government were supposedly biased and unreliable, because they were wrong in the predictions that Macedonia and Montenegro would recognize soon. As if Tocino regulates the gears of time and is able to assert when soon is soon and when late is late, and as if somehow predictions and perhapses are the new standard for judging sources. All in all, Avala and Tocino combined, apart for causing huge and often laughable disputes in the TALK section of this article, directly or indirectly they also cause either biased, incendiary or just unnecessary layerings to appear on the main article (remember the Pristina with the Serbian "s" episode?). Lithuania moved back and forth on the list a zillion times, Qatar hasn't appeared alongside Saudi Arabia yet because of some wishful thinking diplomacy being engaged around here that somehow journalists are just expressing some personal hallucination when they report that Qatar diplomats have said they are in the process of recognizing, and Malta still doesn't appear in the about to recognize list, despite Maltese diplomats having said so during that EU meeting this month. Obviously these entries are not appearing alongside Saudi Arabia because wishful thinking is being applied, and of course if Malta or Qatar are to recognize tomorrow, then we'd just have to move them from the "Don't recognize or have yet to recognize" immediately to "Recognize", even though we knew about their intent to recognize way before hand but a few obstructive members pushed their POV in crafty manners, thus leading to an unrealistic portrayal of positions or events in the main article. The last saga strongly backed by these members now revolves around complicating and overcrowding the recognitions table by writting in every single instance when someone agreed or disagreed to the recognition prior to the decision to recognize and/or any ongoing debacle over it. As if little hissings here and there are more important than the approval and seals of the cabinets of each government. A similar scenario happened some months ago with the map as well, where they wanted to color-code the countries based on the continuously faulty or erroneous positions that have often been supplied as "official/unofficial" stances in the "Yet to recognize" table. All in all, when you add it all up, it amounts to month after month after month of schemes, complots, POV shaping and reshaping, all in a flagrant attempt to favor Serbia's stance. Just awful. Exo (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo passports

They're still a few weeks away from issuing them out however the passport issue could become a very serious one. I have no doubt some people are going to come on and claim recognition of passports is recognition of statehood and even try to argue for it. So I think it's best to be pre-emptive in this. It's especially relevant because it seems Greece is going to recognize Kosovo passports and most likely other nations which haven't recognized, in particular New Zealand and Spain. It's also highly likely that other countries will not recognize their passports like Russia and possibly Bosnia. Those recognizing its independence are almost certain to recognize its passports so having another category for countries recognizing their passports might be legitimate. Of course, this also is an issue extending to the article on the passport and the article on their foreign relations. However, at least, this will provide for an important distinction in the article so its understood that not all those opposed to the declaration are like Russia and Serbia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be a mess, because lots of the states that have made so much of refusing to recognise Kosovo, such as Spain and Russia, are going to have to decide how to handle travel documents. Recognition of travel documents does not per se confer recognition on the issuing polity, but on the other hand, it tacitly does. Most countries don't recognise the Republic of China, but they accept and visa Republic of China passports. The implications will be very interesting to study. Canadian Bobby (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovar Passport should be dealt in that article but in this article countries such as Greece that haven't recognized but will accept the Kosovar Passport should be noted somewhere; it is a reaction, I'd call it partial recognition. Also as of yesterday all visitors and citizens are getting the Republic of Kosova stamp; no longer "UNMIK Kosovo". Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How does this affect EU rules such as the Schengen treaty? Kosovo is neither on the list of states whose citizens need a visa, nor on the list of states whose citizens don't need a visa. Will Kosovo citizens be able to enter the Schengen area without a visa, with a visa or not at all? Will different visa regulations apply to different Schengen states? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

No. Kosovans will still require visas. The visa-free list is the only authoriative one, i.e. onyl nationals on that list are excempt from the visa requirement, all that aren't listed need a visa. Kosovo will only have a chance of becoming a visa-free countries when all 25 Schengen members agree. It's a bit uncertain what would happen if a Kosovan were issued a Schengen visa by let's say Germany, and then wanted to travel to Spain, whose government doesn't recognize Kosovo as a country. There is a similar situation between Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic (both members of the EEA and soon of Schengen) and in that case the Czech Republic accepts Liechtenstein passports even though they do not recognize Liechtenstein (and vice versa). Passportguy (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


This is good encyclopedic information, but shouldn't it be on Foreign relations of the Republic of Kosovo instead? Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


You cant lie about something which hasn't happened. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if the Greeks will actually put out a statement saying they'll accept Kosovar passports or not. We'll just have to wait and see, as with pretty much everything else.
To reaffirm an earlier point, we all understand very clearly that you hate Kosovo, Tocino, and would love nothing more than for the whole place to sink into the earth's molten core - excepting the resident Serbs, of course - so could you please stop using every post to grandstand? Nobody in Belgrade is going to notice that you're the biggest, baddest anti-Kosovo dude here and fly you in for a medal ceremony, so you're really not helping yourself nor the content of the page. Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't hate Kosovo. Stop the personal attacks please. --Tocino 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Kosovo Albanian separatist government"--Jakezing (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
What is wrong? Are they Kosovo Albanian? Yes. Are they separatists? Yes. --Tocino 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If you think that's a personal attack, you're in for a shock when somebody actually directs one at you. Snark? Emphatically yes. Personal attack? No. To avoid any further misunderstanding, shall I say in the future that you only hate everybody in Kosovo who is not a Serb?
A point of order, at what point does the Kosovar government get to graduate from "separatist" to not being separatist?
Thaci, I think, made the much referenced "100 recognitions" remarks in the euphoric heady days surrounding independence. We all get enthused, don't we? I wouldn't give that particular statement much currency - I didn't at the time. I knew it wouldn't be nearly so easy. Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
They will stop being separatists when they cease demands for independence and instead try to negotiate with the central government in Belgrade.
It's not just the 100 recognitions that they have gotten horribly wrong. Just recently they said Montenegro will recognize, which of course was news to Montenegrin officials. --Tocino 00:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

@Tocino. This sources says differently over Montenegro [41] and Thaci is not involved in the source too. Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, it goes without saying that speculation on the part of Hashim Thaçi and a few others doesn't need to be taken seriously. The same with Macedonia's own Thaçi (Menduh, of the DPA), who stated almost every second day that Macedonia will recognise. This goes without saying, so everybody please stop saying it. BalkanFever 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm amazed how, when Tocino is involved, every topic turn into an anti-Kosovo insult festival for Tocino, even if the topic has nothing to do with Thaci or 100 countries. --alchaemia (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The 100 countries comment was "by the end of 2008" if I am not mistaken. There's still plenty of time, but even if it comes close it would be considered a success. Exo (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Salmond's Kosovo comments spark row". MidLothian Today. 2008-02-19. Retrieved 2008-03-18.
  2. ^ "Business Bulletin No. 32/2008: Monday 25 February 2008". Scottish Parliament. 2008-02-25. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  3. ^ "Denmark recognises Kosovo". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-02-21.
  4. ^ "Denmark's relations with Kosovo (Danish)" ambwien.um.dk 06 March 2008 Link accessed 16/05/08
  5. ^ "DENMARK RECOGNISES KOSOVO" ambprag.um.dk 22 February 2008 Link accessed 22/02/08
  6. ^ "Denmark's relations with Kosovo (Danish)" ambwien.um.dk 06 March 2008 Link accessed 16/05/08
  7. ^ "Announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia on recognition of Kosovo's independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  8. ^ "Announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia on recognition of Kosovo's independence". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  9. ^ "Kosovo & Latvia Open Diplomatic Ties" balkaninsight.com 10 June 2008 Link accessed 10/06/08
  10. ^ a b c d e "Ataques al "padre" de la secesión de Kosovo". Compañía Tipográfica Yucateca. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-03-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "cuba" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Raúl shares his seat with Fidel
  12. ^ "Castro diu que la independència de Kòsovo és un precedent per a Catalunya i Euskadi". COMRàdio. 2008-02-29. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ "Castro leaves Cuba stage to brother". TVNZ. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ "Raul Castro named Cuban president". Al Jazeera. 2008-02-24. Retrieved 2008-06-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  16. ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  17. ^ "Kacin: We have recognized independence" blic.co.yu 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  18. ^ "Kosovo Delegation Appears In European Parliament With “Independent Kosovo” Flag" eyugoslavia.com 30 May 2008 Link accessed 30/05/08
  19. ^ "SIERRA LEONE RECOGNIZED KOSOVA" kosovapress.com 13 June 2008 Link accessed 13/06/08
  20. ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  21. ^ "Bangladesh following Kosovo situation closely: Foreign Ministry". Press release. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of Bangladesh. 2008-02-18. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
  22. ^ "Japan-Bangladesh Group urges to recognise Kosovo". The New Nation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Mainul Hosein. 2008-06-14. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
  23. ^ Ватикан не намерен признавать независимость Косово
  24. ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian) For the unofficial translation, click here
  25. ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
  26. ^ a b "Vatican calls for moderation in Kosovo and Serbia". Christian Today. 2008-02-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ a b "Vatican advises moderation in response to Kosovo independence". Catholic News Agency. 2008-02-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ Though the Holy See is an observer state at the UN, it is not a member state. The Holy See maintains official diplomatic relations with most UN member states.
  29. ^ Дыбский, Кирилл. Надо чаще встречаться Itogi, No. 25 (627), June 16, 2008. (Russian)
  30. ^ "Vatican Does Not Intend To Recognize Kosovo Soon, Casper", Tanjug, 16 June 2008 Link accessed 16/06/08
  31. ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kv.html#People
  32. ^ http://www.mofa.gov.iq/english/news/display.aspx?newsid=4298
  33. ^ a b "Kosovo's Declaration of Independence". SKNVibes. St. Kitts & Nevis Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2008-03-27. Retrieved 2008-06-17.
  34. ^ Raúl shares his seat with Fidel
  35. ^ "afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3P7GRr55t2l7VZqxiWweagLgJqw".
  36. ^ "www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t408032.htm".
  37. ^ "afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3P7GRr55t2l7VZqxiWweagLgJqw".
  38. ^ "www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t408032.htm".
  39. ^ a b "Russia, China & India insist Kosovo and Serbia resume talks", Russia Today, Ekaterinburg, 15 May 2008. Link accessed 18 June 2008
  40. ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
  41. ^ "In response to questions on developments regarding Kosovo", Press release of the External Affairs Ministry of India, New Delhi, 18 February 2008. Link accessed 1 March 2008.
  42. ^ "Notes following Briefing by Ambassador George Nene on Kosovo's Unilateral Declaration of Independence". Republic of South Africa Department of Foreign Affairs. 2008-02-20. Retrieved 2008-06-18.
  43. ^ "Klaus ashamed of Kosovo recognition". Aktuálně.cz. 2008-05-26. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  44. ^ "Kosovo autonomy dispute rages". Prague Post. 2008-06-25. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo/Archive_25&oldid=1136821384"